A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
The explorer gets summarily executed for his heinous crimes.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
The explorer gets summarily executed for his heinous crimes.
Why? He has not told any individual they have the flaw, and has not told anyone something they do not already know, namely that some people have the flaw?
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
They throw him off the cliff. Each villager, faced with some probability that they have such a flaw and certain death, is better off doing that than risk discovery.
How are they to discover anything from what the explorer has said? The rule against telling someone directly still stands.
[Aside from this the tribe are extremely peaceable, and violence is against their religion.]
For followers of Mark Clarke the Metro had a short story on the suicide of Elliot. Apparently, Clarke had threatened to "squash him like a fly". Elliot had a history of mental problems. He complained to CCHQ, who took no action, and then he was dismissed from his job at Conservative Way Forward.
He then researched suicide methods online before making a choice.
Elliot killed himself by lying down on the track in front of a train.
I know from personal experience that politics attracts some very unpleasant characters, no party is immune. They say its show business for ugly people, I'd say its show business for c***s. For every decent well intentioned person there's a couple of self serving pr***s.
Those particular guys (and I've met them) see seeing that type of show business character trait as a virtue.
Interesting and not surprising, I know exactly the type you mean.
My general observation is that in terms of serious activists Labour are angry, Conservatives arrogant, my lot bonkers, Greens and Libs dreamers.
The anger turns into a spitting rage sometimes. The arrogance on my side is certainly there amongst many of the activists. But a key difference, is that we may think, and many of us do that Labour activists are misguided or wrong, in their believe that greater socialism will make the area a better place, we generally dont consider them to be bad people. We may think socialism itself is evil, but not them.
Amongst some Labour activists there seems to be a general perception that Conservative activists and, post Corbyn, members of the public who vote conservative as actually being sociopaths carrying acts of evil without any conscience whatsoever.
By the way you do tend to find with party activists, the longer they are activists or councillors, the narrower their friendship group becomes. They progressively become intolerant of people who hold different political views, even when their friendship which might be decades old was formed by other things they have in common.
Other period of time those friendships just tail off.
I doubt Remain will change their record over the next three weeks. The lesson they have drawn from both the Sindyref and GE2015 is that project fear and message discipline wins the day if you stick it.
It might not win the war though.
If its a close Remain there are going to be some serious crossed fingers in No10 that they have not been sold a pup by the EU. Then hope that the deal isn't neutered by the EU Parliament. Finally, they better hope like hell that the retired ECJ Judge that described Cameron's announcement that the agreement was not subject to challenge by the ECJ as "Bullshit" is wrong, otherwise his emergency brake, and subsequently his legacy and reputation will last about 10 minutes.
There would be an expectation of Parliament immediately demanding the Government invoke article 50 of the EU and notify them of our intention to leave.
I suggest such a move would paralyse the EU and sent it into crisis. No second referendum would be necessary. Dont bluff. Unless every very pathetic little piece of meat they gave the PM is fulfilled we leave.
I doubt Remain will change their record over the next three weeks. The lesson they have drawn from both the Sindyref and GE2015 is that project fear and message discipline wins the day if you stick it.
It might not win the war though.
If its a close Remain there are going to be some serious crossed fingers in No10 that they have not been sold a pup by the EU. Then hope that the deal isn't neutered by the EU Parliament. Finally, they better hope like hell that the retired ECJ Judge that described Cameron's announcement that the agreement was not subject to challenge by the ECJ as "Bullshit" is wrong, otherwise his emergency brake, and subsequently his legacy and reputation will last about 10 minutes.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
They throw him off the cliff. Each villager, faced with some probability that they have such a flaw and certain death, is better off doing that than risk discovery.
How are they to discover anything from what the explorer has said? The rule against telling someone directly still stands.
Aside from this the tribe are extremely peaceable, and violence is against their religion.
I don't see why they would, but without directly accusing any individual they can compare notes as to how many people have the flaw. Flawless people will see 20, flawed will see 19. So if you can see one fewer flawed person than the consensus you must be flawed yourself and must commit suicide.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
The explorer gets summarily executed for his heinous crimes.
Why? He has not told any individual they have the flaw, and has not told anyone something they do not already know, namely that some people have the flaw?
Are children exempt from these rules? And how old does a child have to be to be told about the rules. Or doesn’t it develop until puberty?
"We all know that the Remain camp has peddled the politics of fear. But what is the object of their fear? What’s the thing that makes them so scared, so convinced that a litany of social and political horrors will befall Blighty if we pull out of Brussels? ...
Whichever way you slice it, every panicked declaration of the Remain lot comes down to saying, ‘Who knows what the mob will get up to once they’re freed from the rights-protecting, environment-respecting directives of the EU?’ And the closer the referendum gets, the clearer this disdain for the demos is becoming.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
Did you read it? IIRC, you've rubbished him before without bothering. I'm disinclined to pay attention to views based on zero knowledge of the arguments made.
Yeah I know. that's why i added
I have read it now.
For me environmental issues are pretty much paramount, so it's hard to sympathise with someone who dismisses them out of hand as unimportant, as he seems to.
The other thing that really disturbs me about him is his total reversal of views, like a Damascene conversion. Like he thought about something, ditched one conviction, then thought, "ooh, ditching principles is fun. what else can I throw out..." and ending up at totally the opposite end of he political spectrum. the flexibility, it's just too extreme.
Toni Blair may have made a similar journey (if indeed he believed in things in the first place)
Yes, environmental issues are my main concern too. While economic arguments are important, the primary reason for my Remain vote is the need for supranational legislation to deal with issues, primarily environmental, that require the ccordinated efforts of nations. I am extremely wary of those who would simply dismiss these concerns.
Environment for me also, and I'm not some greenie, and I also believe that much of the climate change hysteria is just that, hysteria and hyperbole.
But, the EU does have a good record on improving our local environment, and the UK now does also, but it was only because EU forced UK gvt to do it.
I wouldnt want to step back from that. People take for granted clean air, clean rivers and clean seas.
Well this thread has taught me that getting onto TV gameshows is certainly a non random process... ^_~
100% it isnt...potential contestants are carefully screened & selected. There are a groups of people who you will find have been on a load of them because they fit just what the shows are looking for ie not the guy from the old 15-1 who won i think 3 years running who in the final round of each show just went question...question....question...question...question...
Our host is a cunning host. He has an interest in making sure you choose the wrong door. He knows the location of the prize. If you choose Incorrectly... He simply takes your first choice and gives you the bad news.
However if your original guess was correct... then he offers you the chance to switch. He banks on the fact that the Monty Hall problem is well known enough that you will change. And then think yourself unlucky when you get the goat. In this example... switching is guaranteed failure.
In the setting of a Game show then this is closer to the truth, though the show makers may well want to give away an occasional car. The problem assumes that the host is not trying to manipulate the punter.
Not a viewer of that open the box thing with Noel Edmunds, but I was pointed towards one episode where they rather stupidly had on a post-grad mathematician and previous employee an an analyst at a bookmaker...
Obviously understanding the nonsense of picking "lucky" boxes etc...he just simply went, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...and at each offer was doing some back of an envelope calculations in relation to EV of taking the deal, which resulted in about half way through opening the boxes (and very early in the show) saying deal.
It can be said that it didn't make for a very interesting game show.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
They find out if he's a Remainer and if so throw him off the cliff.
The statement per se is not incriminating - so the best thing to do would be to split the population up into samples - with the explorer being forced to say whether there are 'at least one' or 'none' in the sample. Gradually the selection will result in a very large group with 'none' and a much smaller group that all have the defect (known from the fact that whenever two are moved to the larger group then the announcement changes).
This feels like the quicksort routine for some reason.
Theo Bertram Milne briefing against staffers is wrong & deserves censure. But doing it on TV is spectacularly incompetent.
The man is a buffoon...but then all of team jezza came off as a bunch of amateur numpties playing in the big leagues without much idea of what they were doing.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
They throw him off the cliff. Each villager, faced with some probability that they have such a flaw and certain death, is better off doing that than risk discovery.
How are they to discover anything from what the explorer has said? The rule against telling someone directly still stands.
Aside from this the tribe are extremely peaceable, and violence is against their religion.
I don't see why they would, but without directly accusing any individual they can compare notes as to how many people have the flaw. Flawless people will see 20, flawed will see 19. So if you can see one fewer flawed person than the consensus you must be flawed yourself and must commit suicide.
Haha. No. Let's assume discussion of "how many flawed irises can you see?" and suchlike is also banned within the tribe.
Besides, we know that must be the implied rule, since otherwise there would be no people left with flawed irises by the time the explorer arrived! They would already have figured it out that way themselves long ago, if it were permissable... (^_-)
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
If its an international agreement then presumably it will bind the UK government as well.
In any case your argument amounts to trusting the elites to do the right things rather than trusting the British voters to elect the right people to do the right things, which is a view I suppose, but not exactly democratic.
It also leaves the questions that what happens when the elite do the wrong things and you can't do anything about it. Such as the entirely plausible case that the lobbyists for big business at Brussels, which outnumber those in Washington 2:1, manage to get some environmentally damaging regulation passed.
But by that logic no country should every enter into a Treaty with another.
Of course they should. Treaties are not perpetual and eternal, if the public tire of it they elect a different government that resiles from it. The key point isn't what is in the agreement, it is who gets to make and break the agreement, and who if anyone elects them.
For me one of the most obscene things about the whole way the EU works is that the elected part, the EU Parliament cannot propose legislation, it does not have "legislative initiative", it only gets to agree or disagree Commission proposals, and modify them within fairly tightly defined limits - Democracy my arse.
Surely exactly the same applies to the UK Parliament. Almost all bills are initiated by the executive. Yes there are private members bills but they are rarely of significance.
At the risk of being on entirely the wrong website...
3 people are blindfolded, and a 4th person tells them they will each get a hat placed on their head. They are further told that the hat will either be black or white. Next they are told that they will be seated in a triangle all facing inwards (so they can all see each other) and the blindfolds removed simultaneously. Finally they are told to raise their hand if they see a black hat.
The winner is the first person who can tell what colour their own hat is. (NB they cannot look up and see their own...)
In fact they ALL have black hats on (remember they don't know that).
Obviously they all raised their hands as soon as they had the blindfolds removed. After a while one person says "my hat is black"
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
They find out if he's a Remainer and if so throw him off the cliff.
The statement per se is not incriminating - so the best thing to do would be to split the population up into samples - with the explorer being forced to say whether there are 'at least one' or 'none' in the sample. Gradually the selection will result in a very large group with 'none' and a much smaller group that all have the defect (known from the fact that whenever two are moved to the larger group then the announcement changes).
This feels like the quicksort routine for some reason.
Our host is a cunning host. He has an interest in making sure you choose the wrong door. He knows the location of the prize. If you choose Incorrectly... He simply takes your first choice and gives you the bad news.
However if your original guess was correct... then he offers you the chance to switch. He banks on the fact that the Monty Hall problem is well known enough that you will change. And then think yourself unlucky when you get the goat. In this example... switching is guaranteed failure.
In the setting of a Game show then this is closer to the truth, though the show makers may well want to give away an occasional car. The problem assumes that the host is not trying to manipulate the punter.
Not a viewer of that open the box thing with Noel Edmunds, but I was pointed towards one episode where they rather stupidly had on a post-grad mathematician and previous employee an an analyst at a bookmaker...
Obviously understanding the nonsense of picking "lucky" boxes etc...he just simply went, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...and at each offer was doing some back of an envelope calculations in relation to EV of taking the deal, which resulted in about half way through opening the boxes (and very early in the show) saying deal.
It can be said that it didn't make for a very interesting game show.
Our host is a cunning host. He has an interest in making sure you choose the wrong door. He knows the location of the prize. If you choose Incorrectly... He simply takes your first choice and gives you the bad news.
However if your original guess was correct... then he offers you the chance to switch. He banks on the fact that the Monty Hall problem is well known enough that you will change. And then think yourself unlucky when you get the goat. In this example... switching is guaranteed failure.
In the setting of a Game show then this is closer to the truth, though the show makers may well want to give away an occasional car. The problem assumes that the host is not trying to manipulate the punter.
Not a viewer of that open the box thing with Noel Edmunds, but I was pointed towards one episode where they rather stupidly had on a post-grad mathematician and previous employee an an analyst at a bookmaker...
Obviously understanding the nonsense of picking "lucky" boxes etc...he just simply went, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...and at each offer was doing some back of an envelope calculations in relation to EV of taking the deal, which resulted in about half way through opening the boxes (and very early in the show) saying deal.
It can be said that it didn't make for a very interesting game show.
Electionsetc.com, who published the analysis of previous referendums with those 10 graphs, forecast on the morning of the 2015 GE that there was a 94% probability of a hung parliament.
They are to be admired for not taking their analysis down from their website.
Now they're claiming a 72% probability of a Remain win.
At the risk of being on entirely the wrong website...
3 people are blindfolded, and a 4th person tells them they will each get a hat placed on their head. They are further told that the hat will either be black or white. Next they are told that they will be seated in a triangle all facing inwards (so they can all see each other) and the blindfolds removed simultaneously. Finally they are told to raise their hand if they see a black hat.
The winner is the first person who can tell what colour their own hat is. (NB they cannot look up and see their own...)
In fact they ALL have black hats on (remember they don't know that).
Obviously they all raised their hands as soon as they had the blindfolds removed. After a while one person says "my hat is black"
How does (s)he know?
They know that the other two people can both see at least one black hat, and that both of them have a black hat on. If their own hat were white, then one of the other two people would have been able to work out their own hat must be black because the other black hat wearer saw a black hat. Since everyone was silent, the person's hat must be black
At the risk of being on entirely the wrong website...
3 people are blindfolded, and a 4th person tells them they will each get a hat placed on their head. They are further told that the hat will either be black or white. Next they are told that they will be seated in a triangle all facing inwards (so they can all see each other) and the blindfolds removed simultaneously. Finally they are told to raise their hand if they see a black hat.
The winner is the first person who can tell what colour their own hat is. (NB they cannot look up and see their own...)
In fact they ALL have black hats on (remember they don't know that).
Obviously they all raised their hands as soon as they had the blindfolds removed. After a while one person says "my hat is black"
Haha. No. Let's assume discussion of "how many flawed irises can you see?" and suchlike is also banned within the tribe.
Besides, we know that must be the implied rule, since otherwise there would be no people left with flawed irises by the time the explorer arrived! They would already have figured it out that way themselves long ago, if it were permissable... (^_-)
To prevent a mass suicide the next day, they would have to agree that the people with the flaw need to be revealed. One person would need to tell the ones with the flaw that they have it and then accept being killed for the crime. I'm not sure if there's a way to make sure the martyr has the flaw themselves.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
If its an international agreement then presumably it will bind the UK government as well.
In any case your argument amounts to trusting the elites to do the right things rather than trusting the British voters to elect the right people to do the right things, which is a view I suppose, but not exactly democratic.
It also leaves the questions that what happens when the elite do the wrong things and you can't do anything about it. Such as the entirely plausible case that the lobbyists for big business at Brussels, which outnumber those in Washington 2:1, manage to get some environmentally damaging regulation passed.
But by that logic no country should every enter into a Treaty with another.
Of course they should. Treaties are not perpetual and eternal, if the public tire of it they elect a different government that resiles from it. The key point isn't what is in the agreement, it is who gets to make and break the agreement, and who if anyone elects them.
For me one of the most obscene things about the whole way the EU works is that the elected part, the EU Parliament cannot propose legislation, it does not have "legislative initiative", it only gets to agree or disagree Commission proposals, and modify them within fairly tightly defined limits - Democracy my arse.
Surely exactly the same applies to the UK Parliament. Almost all bills are initiated by the executive. Yes there are private members bills but they are rarely of significance.
We elect the people that form the executive in the UK, and the people that chose them to be the executive. How many EU Commision people are elected ?
At the risk of being on entirely the wrong website...
3 people are blindfolded, and a 4th person tells them they will each get a hat placed on their head. They are further told that the hat will either be black or white. Next they are told that they will be seated in a triangle all facing inwards (so they can all see each other) and the blindfolds removed simultaneously. Finally they are told to raise their hand if they see a black hat.
The winner is the first person who can tell what colour their own hat is. (NB they cannot look up and see their own...)
In fact they ALL have black hats on (remember they don't know that).
Obviously they all raised their hands as soon as they had the blindfolds removed. After a while one person says "my hat is black"
How does (s)he know?
Because if A has a white hat then B could see it and C's black hat. Knowing that C has raised his hand B would know his own hat must be black. As B hasn't made this calculation A knows his own hat must be black. In other words, everyone must be seeing two black hats or the answer would be obvious to the people that saw only one.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
If its an international agreement then presumably it will bind the UK government as well.
In any case your argument amounts to trusting the elites to do the right things rather than trusting the British voters to elect the right people to do the right things, which is a view I suppose, but not exactly democratic.
It also leaves the questions that what happens when the elite do the wrong things and you can't do anything about it. Such as the entirely plausible case that the lobbyists for big business at Brussels, which outnumber those in Washington 2:1, manage to get some environmentally damaging regulation passed.
But by that logic no country should every enter into a Treaty with another.
Of course they should. Treaties are not perpetual and eternal, if the public tire of it they elect a different government that resiles from it. The key point isn't what is in the agreement, it is who gets to make and break the agreement, and who if anyone elects them.
For me one of the most obscene things about the whole way the EU works is that the elected part, the EU Parliament cannot propose legislation, it does not have "legislative initiative", it only gets to agree or disagree Commission proposals, and modify them within fairly tightly defined limits - Democracy my arse.
Surely exactly the same applies to the UK Parliament. Almost all bills are initiated by the executive. Yes there are private members bills but they are rarely of significance.
We elect the people that form the executive in the UK, and the people that chose them to be the executive. How many EU Commision people are elected ?
The people don't choose who is in the executive, MPs do. Except those who are in the House of Lords, of course. How many of them are elected?
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
They throw him off the cliff. Each villager, faced with some probability that they have such a flaw and certain death, is better off doing that than risk discovery.
How are they to discover anything from what the explorer has said? The rule against telling someone directly still stands.
Aside from this the tribe are extremely peaceable, and violence is against their religion.
I don't see why they would, but without directly accusing any individual they can compare notes as to how many people have the flaw. Flawless people will see 20, flawed will see 19. So if you can see one fewer flawed person than the consensus you must be flawed yourself and must commit suicide.
Haha. No. Let's assume discussion of "how many flawed irises can you see?" and suchlike is also banned within the tribe.
Besides, we know that must be the implied rule, since otherwise there would be no people left with flawed irises by the time the explorer arrived! They would already have figured it out that way themselves long ago, if it were permissable... (^_-)
I really want to fit the Goo Goo Dolls into a response to this riddle.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
They throw him off the cliff. Each villager, faced with some probability that they have such a flaw and certain death, is better off doing that than risk discovery.
How are they to discover anything from what the explorer has said? The rule against telling someone directly still stands.
Aside from this the tribe are extremely peaceable, and violence is against their religion.
I don't see why they would, but without directly accusing any individual they can compare notes as to how many people have the flaw. Flawless people will see 20, flawed will see 19. So if you can see one fewer flawed person than the consensus you must be flawed yourself and must commit suicide.
Haha. No. Let's assume discussion of "how many flawed irises can you see?" and suchlike is also banned within the tribe.
Besides, we know that must be the implied rule, since otherwise there would be no people left with flawed irises by the time the explorer arrived! They would already have figured it out that way themselves long ago, if it were permissable... (^_-)
I really want to fit the Goo Goo Dolls into a response to this riddle.
Electionsetc.com, who published the analysis of previous referendums with those 10 graphs, forecast on the morning of the 2015 GE that there was a 94% probability of a hung parliament.
They are to be admired for not taking their analysis down from their website.
Now they're claiming a 72% probability of a Remain win.
Electionsetc.com, who published the analysis of previous referendums with those 10 graphs, forecast on the morning of the 2015 GE that there was a 94% probability of a hung parliament.
They are to be admired for not taking their analysis down from their website.
Now they're claiming a 72% probability of a Remain win.
What is the probablity of them being right this time. After all they, presumably, have been right or sort of right on other occasions.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
The explorer gets summarily executed for his heinous crimes.
Why? He has not told any individual they have the flaw, and has not told anyone something they do not already know, namely that some people have the flaw?
Are children exempt from these rules? And how old does a child have to be to be told about the rules. Or doesn’t it develop until puberty?
Well, babies and very young children are unable to commit suicide, or understand the rule. As soon as they develop cognitively they understand the rule. It is the first thing they learn.
For the purposes of the puzzle, just ignore babies and undeveloped children...
When the explorer said "at least one person", assume he meant and was understood to mean adult tribespeople.
By induction and assuming all are very bright and can work this out. Assume to start with that there is only 1 person with faulty iris. That person would see all pure iris and therefore know they have a faulty iris and therefore commit suicide. If nobody commits suicide then there must be more than one faulty iris. If the next day someone can see only 1 faulty iris and he knows there must be more than 1 faulty iris as nobody commited suicide the previous day then there must be 2 faulty iris and both people with the faulty iris will commit suicide the 2nd day. Etc, Etc, Etc until you get to 20 days when 20 people will commit suicide.
At the risk of being on entirely the wrong website...
3 people are blindfolded, and a 4th person tells them they will each get a hat placed on their head. They are further told that the hat will either be black or white. Next they are told that they will be seated in a triangle all facing inwards (so they can all see each other) and the blindfolds removed simultaneously. Finally they are told to raise their hand if they see a black hat.
The winner is the first person who can tell what colour their own hat is. (NB they cannot look up and see their own...)
In fact they ALL have black hats on (remember they don't know that).
Obviously they all raised their hands as soon as they had the blindfolds removed. After a while one person says "my hat is black"
How does (s)he know?
How could the 4th person remove three blindfolds simultaneously???
The Monty Hall problem is something that people with PhDs struggle to understand but gamblers get it instantly.
If there are three boxes A B and C and you are told that in one of them is a nice prize, say £!000 but in each of the other two is only £1 and you are asked to choose one box, lets say you choose A so the host of the game, who knows where the big prize is, says OK lets see if the big prize is in box C and opens the box revealing that no, there's only £I in box C.
So the host turns to you and says it's not C, so it's either A or B and offers you the chance to change your box to B or stick with A. So the question is - Is it in your best interests to stick with A or change to B. The answer is that you should change your box to B because it has a 50% chance of being the box with the big prize given the information that you now have, at the start of the game it only had a 33.33 chance of being that box.
Bear in mind the host has to open a box the contestant didn't choose and he can't open the one that he knows has the big prize but he has to offer the switch.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
Not sure, but do 20 people jump off the cliff 20 days later? Because if there were 2 people who had the flaw, each of them would expect the other to jump the next morning. When no-one does, they must figure that they ALSO have the flaw - so jump.
Too lazy to figure it out more, but does it scale up to 20, so when no-one jumps on day 19, the 20 then know they have the flaw as well?
Haha. No. Let's assume discussion of "how many flawed irises can you see?" and suchlike is also banned within the tribe.
Besides, we know that must be the implied rule, since otherwise there would be no people left with flawed irises by the time the explorer arrived! They would already have figured it out that way themselves long ago, if it were permissable... (^_-)
To prevent a mass suicide the next day, they would have to agree that the people with the flaw need to be revealed. One person would need to tell the ones with the flaw that they have it and then accept being killed for the crime. I'm not sure if there's a way to make sure the martyr has the flaw themselves.
Why would there be any mass suicide the next day? The explorer has not told anyone anything new. Everyone already knew there are people with the flawed iris...
Obviously, no-one wants to commit suicide, unless they are sure they have the flaw.
At the risk of being on entirely the wrong website...
3 people are blindfolded, and a 4th person tells them they will each get a hat placed on their head. They are further told that the hat will either be black or white. Next they are told that they will be seated in a triangle all facing inwards (so they can all see each other) and the blindfolds removed simultaneously. Finally they are told to raise their hand if they see a black hat.
The winner is the first person who can tell what colour their own hat is. (NB they cannot look up and see their own...)
In fact they ALL have black hats on (remember they don't know that).
Obviously they all raised their hands as soon as they had the blindfolds removed. After a while one person says "my hat is black"
How does (s)he know?
How could the 4th person remove three blindfolds simultaneously???
The Monty Hall problem is something that people with PhDs struggle to understand but gamblers get it instantly.
If there are three boxes A B and C and you are told that in one of them is a nice prize, say £!000 but in each of the other two is only £1 and you are asked to choose one box, lets say you choose A so the host of the game, who knows where the big prize is, says OK lets see if the big prize is in box C and opens the box revealing that no, there's only £I in box C.
So the host turns to you and says it's not C, so it's either A or B and offers you the chance to change your box to B or stick with A. So the question is - Is it in your best interests to stick with A or change to B. The answer is that you should change your box to B because it has a 50% chance of being the box with the big prize given the information that you now have, at the start of the game it only had a 33.33 chance of being that box.
Bear in mind the host has to open a box the contestant didn't choose and he can't open the one that he knows has the big prize but he has to offer the switch.
Yes and it is your last paragraph that is crucial because without that, the choice could remain 50/50. It all depends on the host.
The Monty Hall problem is something that people with PhDs struggle to understand but gamblers get it instantly.
If there are three boxes A B and C and you are told that in one of them is a nice prize, say £!000 but in each of the other two is only £1 and you are asked to choose one box, lets say you choose A so the host of the game, who knows where the big prize is, says OK lets see if the big prize is in box C and opens the box revealing that no, there's only £I in box C.
So the host turns to you and says it's not C, so it's either A or B and offers you the chance to change your box to B or stick with A. So the question is - Is it in your best interests to stick with A or change to B. The answer is that you should change your box to B because it has a 50% chance of being the box with the big prize given the information that you now have, at the start of the game it only had a 33.33 chance of being that box.
Bear in mind the host has to open a box the contestant didn't choose and he can't open the one that he knows has the big prize but he has to offer the switch.
No, it's a 66.6...% chance of having the big prize. Future actions can't go back in time and change the probability of your choice. When you made your choice there was a 33.3% chance you got it right. That means there is a 66.6% chance the other options were correct.
Revealing what is in one of the other boxes doesn't change the fact that the other options to what you selected had a 66% chance.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
Nothing. Everyone who has the flaw can see 19 others who have it so unless they know how many have the flaw they cannot deduce that there is any more chance that they have it than there was before the announcement.
Actually, that's the best way of thinking about it if you are still in denial.
You choose a door, then the host allows you the option to instead open all the other doors and if the car is behind any of them then you win. Or you can stick with your one door.
So your options are Open one door or Open two doors.
By induction and assuming all are very bright and can work this out. Assume to start with that there is only 1 person with faulty iris. That person would see all pure iris and therefore know they have a faulty iris and therefore commit suicide. If nobody commits suicide then there must be more than one faulty iris. If the next day someone can see only 1 faulty iris and he knows there must be more than 1 faulty iris as nobody commited suicide the previous day then there must be 2 faulty iris and both people with the faulty iris will commit suicide the 2nd day. Etc, Etc, Etc until you get to 20 days when 20 people will commit suicide.
I agree with this - a better way of saying what I was trying to. In fact, it'll be on day 19 I think, rather than day 20
Haha. No. Let's assume discussion of "how many flawed irises can you see?" and suchlike is also banned within the tribe.
Besides, we know that must be the implied rule, since otherwise there would be no people left with flawed irises by the time the explorer arrived! They would already have figured it out that way themselves long ago, if it were permissable... (^_-)
To prevent a mass suicide the next day, they would have to agree that the people with the flaw need to be revealed. One person would need to tell the ones with the flaw that they have it and then accept being killed for the crime. I'm not sure if there's a way to make sure the martyr has the flaw themselves.
Why would there be any mass suicide the next day? The explorer has not told anyone anything new. Everyone already knew there are people with the flawed iris...
Obviously, no-one wants to commit suicide, unless they are sure they have the flaw.
Right, I get it now a couple of people have posted the correct answer. A very good riddle.
Whichever way you slice it, every panicked declaration of the Remain lot comes down to saying, ‘Who knows what the mob will get up to once they’re freed from the rights-protecting, environment-respecting directives of the EU?’ And the closer the referendum gets, the clearer this disdain for the demos is becoming.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
Did you read it? IIRC, you've rubbished him before without bothering. I'm disinclined to pay attention to views based on zero knowledge of the arguments made.
Yeah I know. that's why i added
I have read it now.
For me environmental issues are pretty much paramount, so it's hard to sympathise with someone who dismisses them out of hand as unimportant, as he seems to.
The other thing that really disturbs me about him is his total reversal of views, like a Damascene conversion. Like he thought about something, ditched one conviction, then thought, "ooh, ditching principles is fun. what else can I throw out..." and ending up at totally the opposite end of he political spectrum. the flexibility, it's just too extreme.
Toni Blair may have made a similar journey (if indeed he believed in things in the first place)
Yes, environmental issues are my main concern too. While economic arguments are important, the primary reason for my Remain vote is the need for supranational legislation to deal with issues, primarily environmental, that require the ccordinated efforts of nations. I am extremely wary of those who would simply dismiss these concerns.
Environment for me also, and I'm not some greenie, and I also believe that much of the climate change hysteria is just that, hysteria and hyperbole.
But, the EU does have a good record on improving our local environment, and the UK now does also, but it was only because EU forced UK gvt to do it.
I wouldnt want to step back from that. People take for granted clean air, clean rivers and clean seas.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
The tribespeople kick out the explorer, build a giant wall around their territory, and hold a referendum to prevent future visits from foreigners. The motion is carried by a landslide, all immigrants are banned, and the tribe live in blissful ignorance of their flaws thereafter, until starving to death due to lack of trade with the outside world.
By induction and assuming all are very bright and can work this out. Assume to start with that there is only 1 person with faulty iris. That person would see all pure iris and therefore know they have a faulty iris and therefore commit suicide. If nobody commits suicide then there must be more than one faulty iris. If the next day someone can see only 1 faulty iris and he knows there must be more than 1 faulty iris as nobody commited suicide the previous day then there must be 2 faulty iris and both people with the faulty iris will commit suicide the 2nd day. Etc, Etc, Etc until you get to 20 days when 20 people will commit suicide.
I agree with this - a better way of saying what I was trying to. In fact, it'll be on day 19 I think, rather than day 20
The Monty Hall problem is something that people with PhDs struggle to understand but gamblers get it instantly.
If there are three boxes A B and C and you are told that in one of them is a nice prize, say £!000 but in each of the other two is only £1 and you are asked to choose one box, lets say you choose A so the host of the game, who knows where the big prize is, says OK lets see if the big prize is in box C and opens the box revealing that no, there's only £I in box C.
So the host turns to you and says it's not C, so it's either A or B and offers you the chance to change your box to B or stick with A. So the question is - Is it in your best interests to stick with A or change to B. The answer is that you should change your box to B because it has a 50% chance of being the box with the big prize given the information that you now have, at the start of the game it only had a 33.33 chance of being that box.
Bear in mind the host has to open a box the contestant didn't choose and he can't open the one that he knows has the big prize but he has to offer the switch.
No, it's a 66.6...% chance of having the big prize. Future actions can't go back in time and change the probability of your choice. When you made your choice there was a 33.3% chance you got it right. That means there is a 66.6% chance the other options were correct.
Revealing what is in one of the other boxes doesn't change the fact that the other options to what you selected had a 66% chance.
No -- the key is the host must know. Otherwise the host may as well be a second contestant and if there are two contestants who each randomly choose a box (33%) it is an obvious paradox to say they can both double their chances by swapping after the empty box is removed.
The point is the host *does know* and *is helpful* so the host effectively says that if the car is in the 66% you did not choose, he'll give it to you.
That is why you swap and also why British respondents who are unfamiliar with the original game tend to pick 50/50.
All these environmental issues - rivers, beaches, air quality - were a hang over from a time when people didn't care about such things and it had been that way since the industrial revolution. There is no reason at all to believe that, starting from a position of having clean beaches and rivers and with a population that is strongly environmentally aware, we will revert to polluting them again.
This is the trouble with the Remaniacs. They treat the population like children who have to be badgered and forced to do the right thing all the time. This is why you deserve to lose.
Oh and on the subject of the environment, it is Britain which has been leading the way with the establishment of Marine reserves and protected areas around the world. We are responsible for the creation of the largest marine reserves in the world. Likewise the establishment of National Parks which happened long before we ever even considered joining the EEC. This is not driven by any EU ruling or directive but by the willingness of the British government and British people to do the right thing.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
ComRes have sent out an email which contains the following
Knowing me, knowing you
As ABBA once said, “breaking up is never easy” and few people seem to have any illusions about how much is at stake in this month’s referendum
Though we never thought that we could lose There's no regret If I had to do the same again I would my friend Fernando
I don't wanna talk About this EU referendum we've gone through
One of us is crying One of us is lying
I work all night, I work all day, to pay the EU bills I have to pay Ain't it sad
EUref- I was defeated, you won the war EUref - Promise to love you for ever more EUref - Couldn't escape if I wanted to EUref - Knowing my fate is to be with you EUref - Finally facing my EUref
All these environmental issues - rivers, beaches, air quality - were a hang over from a time when people didn't care about such things and it had been that way since the industrial revolution. There is no reason at all to believe that, starting from a position of having clean beaches and rivers and with a population that is strongly environmentally aware, we will revert to polluting them again.
This is the trouble with the Remaniacs. They treat the population like children who have to be badgered and forced to do the right thing all the time. This is why you deserve to lose.
Oh and on the subject of the environment, it is Britain which has been leading the way with the establishment of Marine reserves and protected areas around the world. We are responsible for the creation of the largest marine reserves in the world. Likewise the establishment of National Parks which happened long before we ever even considered joining the EEC. This is not driven by any EU ruling or directive but by the willingness of the British government and British people to do the right thing.
I see "The EU was good for us THEREFORE it will be good for us" as the Remain equivalent of the Out argument "The EU was built for another time THEREFORE it can't help us now".
ComRes have sent out an email which contains the following
Knowing me, knowing you
As ABBA once said, “breaking up is never easy” and few people seem to have any illusions about how much is at stake in this month’s referendum
Though we never thought that we could lose There's no regret If I had to do the same again I would my friend Fernando
I don't wanna talk About this EU referendum we've gone through
One of us is crying One of us is lying
I work all night, I work all day, to pay the EU bills I have to pay Ain't it sad
I wonder, it's frightening Leaving now, is that the right thing? I wonder, it scares me But who the the hell am I if I don't leave it I'm not a coward Oh no, I'll be strong One chance in a lifetime Yes I will take it, it can't go wrong
All these environmental issues - rivers, beaches, air quality - were a hang over from a time when people didn't care about such things and it had been that way since the industrial revolution. There is no reason at all to believe that, starting from a position of having clean beaches and rivers and with a population that is strongly environmentally aware, we will revert to polluting them again.
This is the trouble with the Remaniacs. They treat the population like children who have to be badgered and forced to do the right thing all the time. This is why you deserve to lose.
Oh and on the subject of the environment, it is Britain which has been leading the way with the establishment of Marine reserves and protected areas around the world. We are responsible for the creation of the largest marine reserves in the world. Likewise the establishment of National Parks which happened long before we ever even considered joining the EEC. This is not driven by any EU ruling or directive but by the willingness of the British government and British people to do the right thing.
I see "The EU was good for us THEREFORE it will be good for us" as the Remain equivalent of the Out argument "The EU was built for another time THEREFORE it can't help us now".
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
The tribespeople kick out the explorer, build a giant wall around their territory, and hold a referendum to prevent future visits from foreigners. The motion is carried by a landslide, all immigrants are banned, and the tribe live in blissful ignorance of their flaws thereafter, until starving to death due to lack of trade with the outside world.
But are they happier, that is what you have to ask yourself. And their suicide rate indicates they may well be.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
Is that really a problem?
It could be if we are trying to negotiate trade deals with them - also many Brits work abroad. My son in law works for Airbus and is in constant meetings in France, Germany and Spain with fellow engineers
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
Is that really a problem?
It could be if we are trying to negotiate trade deals with them - also many Brits work abroad. My son in law works for Airbus and is in constant meetings in France, Germany and Spain with fellow engineers
Would be quite something to retroactively enact these new policies, I don't think anyone is proposing that. And they relate to migration, I suspect short business trips will be unaffected.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
I'm sure we'll be able to live with that.
If you want to live and work elsewhere in the EU then it is, at least potentially, a showstopper.
All these environmental issues - rivers, beaches, air quality - were a hang over from a time when people didn't care about such things and it had been that way since the industrial revolution. There is no reason at all to believe that, starting from a position of having clean beaches and rivers and with a population that is strongly environmentally aware, we will revert to polluting them again.
This is the trouble with the Remaniacs. They treat the population like children who have to be badgered and forced to do the right thing all the time. This is why you deserve to lose.
Oh and on the subject of the environment, it is Britain which has been leading the way with the establishment of Marine reserves and protected areas around the world. We are responsible for the creation of the largest marine reserves in the world. Likewise the establishment of National Parks which happened long before we ever even considered joining the EEC. This is not driven by any EU ruling or directive but by the willingness of the British government and British people to do the right thing.
I see "The EU was good for us THEREFORE it will be good for us" as the Remain equivalent of the Out argument "The EU was built for another time THEREFORE it can't help us now".
Except I have seen no one on the Brexit side making that argument. We are arguing that the EU as it was designed and has developed is not good for us and never would have been good for us at any time.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
I'm sure we'll be able to live with that.
If you want to live and work elsewhere in the EU then it is, at least potentially, a showstopper.
Nonsense. Unadulterated tripe. There is not a chance that the EU will stop UK citizens from going there and spending money.
The Monty Hall problem is something that people with PhDs struggle to understand but gamblers get it instantly.
If there are three boxes A B and C and you are told that in one of them is a nice prize, say £!000 but in each of the other two is only £1 and you are asked to choose one box, lets say you choose A so the host of the game, who knows where the big prize is, says OK lets see if the big prize is in box C and opens the box revealing that no, there's only £I in box C.
So the host turns to you and says it's not C, so it's either A or B and offers you the chance to change your box to B or stick with A. So the question is - Is it in your best interests to stick with A or change to B. The answer is that you should change your box to B because it has a 50% chance of being the box with the big prize given the information that you now have, at the start of the game it only had a 33.33 chance of being that box.
Bear in mind the host has to open a box the contestant didn't choose and he can't open the one that he knows has the big prize but he has to offer the switch.
No, it's a 66.6...% chance of having the big prize. Future actions can't go back in time and change the probability of your choice. When you made your choice there was a 33.3% chance you got it right. That means there is a 66.6% chance the other options were correct.
Revealing what is in one of the other boxes doesn't change the fact that the other options to what you selected had a 66% chance.
No -- the key is the host must know. Otherwise the host may as well be a second contestant and if there are two contestants who each randomly choose a box (33%) it is an obvious paradox to say they can both double their chances by swapping after the empty box is removed.
The point is the host *does know* and *is helpful* so the host effectively says that if the car is in the 66% you did not choose, he'll give it to you.
That is why you swap and also why British respondents who are unfamiliar with the original game tend to pick 50/50.
I'm not disagreeing about switching, I'm saying RobbieBox's numbers are wrong. He says the host picking opening one of the two remaining doors raises the chance of switching to the unrevealed door from 33% to 50%, this is wrong, the chance is 66%.
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
I'm sure we'll be able to live with that.
If you want to live and work elsewhere in the EU then it is, at least potentially, a showstopper.
Nonsense. Unadulterated tripe. There is not a chance that the EU will stop UK citizens from going there and spending money.
Why? You think it makes eminent sense for us to have a points system for them but not for them to have a points system for us?
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
I'm sure we'll be able to live with that.
If you want to live and work elsewhere in the EU then it is, at least potentially, a showstopper.
Nonsense. Unadulterated tripe. There is not a chance that the EU will stop UK citizens from going there and spending money.
As I understand it we will be stopping large swathes of eu workers coming here, so why would other countries not act the same?
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
I'm sure we'll be able to live with that.
If you want to live and work elsewhere in the EU then it is, at least potentially, a showstopper.
Nonsense. Unadulterated tripe. There is not a chance that the EU will stop UK citizens from going there and spending money.
'Live and work' and 'go there and spend money' are not the same thing. The right for a British person to live and work anywhere in the EU is a personal freedom which I don't want to give up.
The Dutch PMs threat is an empty one. There is no way the current pro mass-migration capitalists and left-wing open border anarchists would suddenly disappear and allow a wave of points based systems across Europe. (Even if it happened, I think it would be fantastic)
Nobody retaliated against Australlians points based system and I see no reasn for them to start now. (Or all the other countries in the world that are free to set their own immigration criteria)
Not to mention how such aggressive actions (not talking specifically about the points based system here - which they are all rightfully entitlted to implement if their is the democratic impetus for it) taken against leaving countries would be a stretch under Article 8:
"1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation."
Trade deals are bad, we should be able to trade freely with everybody and anybody.
But most trade deals these days are about the elimination of NTBs. For example, should Indian lawyers be able to offer conveyancing services to people in the UK?
Ok, entirely without humour: 'referendum' translates as "issue to be referred (to the people). 'Referenda' is not a word in Latin (there's no such thing as a plural gerund), if it were it would best translate as 'issues to be referred (to the people)'. So it pluralises the issues to be voted on, not the voting occasions themselves. Which makes 'referendums', not 'referenda', the best plural form of 'referendum'. Brexeo, brexis, brexit..
See the Dutch PM has said that on the introduction of a points system by the UK post Brexit the European Union would retaliate with restrictions on the UK - inevitable really - it is a strange world where leave think we can go but then there will be no adverse consequences as we would all still want to be friends
Why do we want to stay in a political union with people who threaten us like that?
Ok, entirely without humour: 'referendum' translates as "issue to be referred (to the people). 'Referenda' is not a word in Latin (there's no such thing as a plural gerund), if it were it would best translate as 'issues to be referred (to the people)'. So it pluralises the issues to be voted on, not the voting occasions themselves. Which makes 'referendums', not 'referenda', the best plural form of 'referendum'. Brexeo, brexis, brexit..
Comments
Cameron's response to the points system sounds like he's talking to a five year old who asked for an extra ice cream.
[Aside from this the tribe are extremely peaceable, and violence is against their religion.]
Amongst some Labour activists there seems to be a general perception that Conservative activists and, post Corbyn, members of the public who vote conservative as actually being sociopaths carrying acts of evil without any conscience whatsoever.
By the way you do tend to find with party activists, the longer they are activists or councillors, the narrower their friendship group becomes. They progressively become intolerant of people who hold different political views, even when their friendship which might be decades old was formed by other things they have in common.
Other period of time those friendships just tail off.
A Britain that has left will be in a strong position to negotiate free-trade deals with the EU:
Agree: 44%
Disagree: 27%
(Ipsos Mori)
I suggest such a move would paralyse the EU and sent it into crisis. No second referendum would be necessary. Dont bluff. Unless every very pathetic little piece of meat they gave the PM is fulfilled we leave.
http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/yourtown/oxford/14528790.More_than_100_people_in_Abingdon_given_two_EU_referendum_postal_votes/?ref=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
But, the EU does have a good record on improving our local environment, and the UK now does also, but it was only because EU forced UK gvt to do it.
I wouldnt want to step back from that. People take for granted clean air, clean rivers and clean seas.
They didnt 25 years ago!!
Milne briefing against staffers is wrong & deserves censure. But doing it on TV is spectacularly incompetent.
ComRes have sent out an email which contains the following
Knowing me, knowing you
As ABBA once said, “breaking up is never easy” and few people seem to have any illusions about how much is at stake in this month’s referendum
The statement per se is not incriminating - so the best thing to do would be to split the population up into samples - with the explorer being forced to say whether there are 'at least one' or 'none' in the sample. Gradually the selection will result in a very large group with 'none' and a much smaller group that all have the defect (known from the fact that whenever two are moved to the larger group then the announcement changes).
This feels like the quicksort routine for some reason.
The #EUref is not the #indyref https://t.co/vsg7cOYWMP
Besides, we know that must be the implied rule, since otherwise there would be no people left with flawed irises by the time the explorer arrived! They would already have figured it out that way themselves long ago, if it were permissable... (^_-)
3 people are blindfolded, and a 4th person tells them they will each get a hat placed on their head. They are further told that the hat will either be black or white. Next they are told that they will be seated in a triangle all facing inwards (so they can all see each other) and the blindfolds removed simultaneously. Finally they are told to raise their hand if they see a black hat.
The winner is the first person who can tell what colour their own hat is. (NB they cannot look up and see their own...)
In fact they ALL have black hats on (remember they don't know that).
Obviously they all raised their hands as soon as they had the blindfolds removed. After a while one person says "my hat is black"
How does (s)he know?
So there'll be two blonds on the news that day. Will they meet?
They are to be admired for not taking their analysis down from their website.
Now they're claiming a 72% probability of a Remain win.
Bonus q - how long do you think you would have taken to work it out yourself, under pressure? :-)
There's no regret
If I had to do the same again
I would my friend
Fernando
Which is a meaningful chance.
For the purposes of the puzzle, just ignore babies and undeveloped children...
When the explorer said "at least one person", assume he meant and was understood to mean adult tribespeople.
By induction and assuming all are very bright and can work this out. Assume to start with that there is only 1 person with faulty iris. That person would see all pure iris and therefore know they have a faulty iris and therefore commit suicide. If nobody commits suicide then there must be more than one faulty iris. If the next day someone can see only 1 faulty iris and he knows there must be more than 1 faulty iris as nobody commited suicide the previous day then there must be 2 faulty iris and both people with the faulty iris will commit suicide the 2nd day. Etc, Etc, Etc until you get to 20 days when 20 people will commit suicide.
If there are three boxes A B and C and you are told that in one of them is a nice prize, say £!000 but in each of the other two is only £1 and you are asked to choose one box, lets say you choose A so the host of the game, who knows where the big prize is, says OK lets see if the big prize is in box C and opens the box revealing that no, there's only £I in box C.
So the host turns to you and says it's not C, so it's either A or B and offers you the chance to change your box to B or stick with A. So the question is - Is it in your best interests to stick with A or change to B.
The answer is that you should change your box to B because it has a 50% chance of being the box with the big prize given the information that you now have, at the start of the game it only had a 33.33 chance of being that box.
Bear in mind the host has to open a box the contestant didn't choose and he can't open the one that he knows has the big prize but he has to offer the switch.
Because if there were 2 people who had the flaw, each of them would expect the other to jump the next morning. When no-one does, they must figure that they ALSO have the flaw - so jump.
Too lazy to figure it out more, but does it scale up to 20, so when no-one jumps on day 19, the 20 then know they have the flaw as well?
Obviously, no-one wants to commit suicide, unless they are sure they have the flaw.
I don't wanna talk
About this EU referendum we've gone through
Revealing what is in one of the other boxes doesn't change the fact that the other options to what you selected had a 66% chance.
Nothing. Everyone who has the flaw can see 19 others who have it so unless they know how many have the flaw they cannot deduce that there is any more chance that they have it than there was before the announcement.
You choose a door, then the host allows you the option to instead open all the other doors and if the car is behind any of them then you win. Or you can stick with your one door.
So your options are
Open one door or
Open two doors.
One of us is lying
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/05/england-beaches-bathing-waters-eu-standards
The point is the host *does know* and *is helpful* so the host effectively says that if the car is in the 66% you did not choose, he'll give it to you.
That is why you swap and also why British respondents who are unfamiliar with the original game tend to pick 50/50.
Ain't it sad
This is the trouble with the Remaniacs. They treat the population like children who have to be badgered and forced to do the right thing all the time. This is why you deserve to lose.
Oh and on the subject of the environment, it is Britain which has been leading the way with the establishment of Marine reserves and protected areas around the world. We are responsible for the creation of the largest marine reserves in the world. Likewise the establishment of National Parks which happened long before we ever even considered joining the EEC. This is not driven by any EU ruling or directive but by the willingness of the British government and British people to do the right thing.
EUref - Promise to love you for ever more
EUref - Couldn't escape if I wanted to
EUref - Knowing my fate is to be with you
EUref - Finally facing my EUref
Voulez-vous (ah-ha)
Take it now or leave it (ah-ha)
Now is all we get (ah-ha)
Nothing promised, no regrets
Leaving now, is that the right thing?
I wonder, it scares me
But who the the hell am I if I don't leave it
I'm not a coward
Oh no, I'll be strong
One chance in a lifetime
Yes I will take it, it can't go wrong
Let's party like it's 1958!
Do we see this theory of "change" being overstated in opinion polls in countries that have a lot of referendums?
Nobody retaliated against Australlians points based system and I see no reasn for them to start now. (Or all the other countries in the world that are free to set their own immigration criteria)
Not to mention how such aggressive actions (not talking specifically about the points based system here - which they are all rightfully entitlted to implement if their is the democratic impetus for it) taken against leaving countries would be a stretch under Article 8:
"1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/news/105751.stm