[High School Mafia]

Joe's student, i agree with your logic but like you say there are not enough people here to create the conditions, that the hooligans could try and muck up anyway. I'm currently voting for abhisk, though for no reason, me changing my vote wouldn't alter much as many people are voting for mekal.

Sorry, thought Limey's vote was yours. BUt at least it would be clear who the Hooligans are that are trying to muck this up.

Prof. T is a prime example.

[High School Mafia]

Change to who? At this point the only one close is Abhisk with no information on them what-so-ever. What makes you say Mekal can't be the Vandal

I think we've found ourselves a Hooligan. I'm vouching that he can't be the Vandal, which is the basis of you're whole argument. Surely an attempted tie with Abhisk where we could expose a possibility for the Rich Kid is better than lynching Mekal, ey Prof. Vandalton?

[High School Mafia]

underground_dan, I see you reading... there's still time left to change your vote.

Edit: And you PT.

[High School Mafia]

I changed my vote because I wanted to hear from Mekal

And I'm telling you all that he can't be the Vandal. RPG, if you agreed then please change your vote.

To spell out what I'm saying : We have a tied vote with no player having more than 3 votes, then if the Rich Kid is voting for a tied player that player will be lynched, thus meaning we have exposed the Rich Kid down to three players. If the Rich Kid isn't voting for a tied player then we'll know immediately who the Rich Kid is b/c the person he votes for will be lynched, even though there will only be one vote on the roster.

May I add that it's in the interest of the Hooligans to not follow through with a tied vote. If you're voting for Mekal please participate and create a tie. Would you prefer to expose the Rich Kid or lynch someone who can't be the Vandal?

Ideally, we should have spread the vote vote out completely, with everyone voting for just the one person, but I wasn't on early enough to propose that and give enough time for people to follow along.

[High School Mafia]

A tie won't get people talking and the Professor's reasoning is sound. Let's hear a your defense Mekal.

Au contraire, a tie is ideal today. Especially a tie with those tied having a maximum of 3 votes. Let's try and expose the Rich Kid shall we? Would someone voting for Mekal switch their vote to Peace please? That way we would have 3 players tied at 3 votes each. If the Rich Kid votes, this guarantees to narrow him down to within at least 3 players. If he doesn't vote then it will also be narrowed down.

School Administrators: Gmaster479 and scsw

1. Clozobozo

2. Abhisk - voting for Amberrock

3. Peace!

4. underground_dan - voting for Abhisk

5. Limey - voting for Marth

6. RPGBully - voting for Mekal

7. Eeeeep

8. Mekal

9. Phaze - voting for Abhisk

10. Amberrock

11. Blue of thout

12. Reaymanator (suspended by 'The Snitch')

13. andromeda - voting for peace

14. Social Darwin - voting for Mekal

15. Marth

16. Prof. Templeton - voting for Mekal

17. Magic_luver101 - voting for Mekal

18. JS - voting for Abhisk

19. GC - voting for Mekal

Edit: Missed Magic_luver's vote. PLease change back to peace Magic.

[High School Mafia]

Question: What happens to the Queen Bees if there are less than 8 males left?

As ever not much to go on etc. except for the Mekal situation. If I'm honest though, it would dissapoint me to find out that he was a Hooligan. He could still be a Queen Bee, but I'm fairly sure that he's not the Vandal. Also I disagree with the line of thought that because he was blocked and because the Vandal didn't make an appearance, that there's a good chance Mekal is the grafiti artiste. The Vandal, unlike the Bodyguard role, is only a messaging role without a blocking action, so there isn't the same neccessity to act at night.

Also, did we establish what andro's paragraph involved?

Maybe not. I think we may start it a little earlier, sometime around 3:00 EST or 12:00 PST (scsw and i are on different ends of the U.S). Either way thank you all for being patient

Do you mean today? Or tomorrow?

If no one minds?

Host: GMaster479

Co-Host: scsw

1. Clozobozo

2. Abhisk

3. Peace!

4. underground_dan

5. Limey

6. RPGBully

7. Eeeeep

8. Mekal

9. Phaze

10. Amberrock

11. Blue of thout

12. Reaymanator

13. andromeda

14. Social Darwin

15. Marth

16. Prof. Templeton

17.Magic_luver101(Magic)

18. JS

19.

Replacements:

1.RainThinker

I was thinking along the same lines, but with a small modification:

1)

as joe's student said its a game of psych out, but for optimal survival B will not shoot b4 his chance of a hit is at least 50%, i.e. 40 steps. Now, B knows that A is thinking the same thing, but for A it is 50 steps. Since A also knows that B will have > than 50% accuracy after 40 steps, A's best chance is to shoot at 40 steps. B has a better chance if he waits for his opponent to reach 50 steps (50%), and then shoot, i.e on the 50th step.

Ans: A would shoot at 40 steps, B would shoot at 50 steps (if A has not jumped the gun)

But b/c they know each others functions, going by your idea, would B not shoot before 40 steps. He wouldn't want to take the chance of A shooting and killing him. You want to be the one to shoot first, especially if your B, as you have a higher chance than A earlier on. So therefore would B not shoot at 39 steps?

I replied in your spolier .

Ok well for the first premise I think it's a type of WIFOM situation:

I'm not sure if this is right but I'll give it a go anyway, maybe someone can point me in the right direction.

1)

For any value of k B's chance of hitting A is higher than A's chance of hitting B. A knows that B is guaranteed to shoot at A when k=80 (if he hasn't before then). So therefore to give A the best possible chance of hitting B, he should shoot when k=79. But b/c B knows A's accuracy functions B should shoot before A i.e when k=78.

Following on from this, A should also realise that B will shoot at k=78 so A should shoot at k=77. You can see where this is going. I think this is more of a psyching-out-the-opponent type set-up.

as i understand there is two hundred paces between them not to the center. So if each take 100 steps then 2 * 100 they have gone 200 steps.

Yeah so they each take a step together? ok thanks.

Two gunmen are standing 200 paces apart. Each man has only 1 bullet in his gun. Every second, the two men take 1 step towards each other. If the first man (call him A) were to shoot, his chance of killing B is k/100, where k is the number of steps he already took. So when k = 0, the two men are 200 paces apart, A's chance of killing is 0. When k=100, which is when the two men are right next to each other, A's chance of killing is 1.

B's chance of killing is 1.25*k/100 when k is less than 80. If k is more than 80, B's chance of killing is 1. Essentially, B's chance of killing increases between 0 and 80 paces, and stays constant at 1 after 80 paces.

Assume that the two men are in a locked room, and there's nowhere to run. Therefore, if a man were to shoot first and miss, the other man would kill him for sure.

1) Let's say that A and B know about their accuracy functions as well as their opponent's, at which step should A shoot for an optimal chance of survival? At what step should B shoot?

2) Let's say that A and B know their accuracy function, but not their opponent's? Where is the optimal shooting step for A? Where is the optimal step for B?

Could you clarify the bit in red for me please? If A takes 100 paces k=100. Seeing as the distance between them is 200, is there not still 100 paces between them? Therefore meaning the two men are not right next to each other? Or do both A & B each take a step at the same time?

Thanks.

As for the second question, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking? Are you asking why a visiting missionary's statement causes the wives to act, and why they didn't before? Are you looking for a logical answer or is it more a general thought type question?

An attempt, I think I'm probably overlooking something though.

I'm presuming every woman on the island is of sound body and mind, and capable of thinking logically?

1) I would say it would be the 9th morning after the announcement. Say, as an example, that there was only one cheating husband. Every wife bar the cheated wife would know who the cheater was. So then the cheated wife thinks, "Hmmm, how come I haven't been told who the cheater was?" She then realises that it must be her husband, because she didn't hear anything, and then paints and shaves his head the next morning.

Now say there were only 2 cheaters, and there wives were A and B. During the day, after the announcement, A and B, both hear of the other's cheating husband. They don't think anything more of it. No one is shaved the next morning, so both A and B realise that there must have been another cheating husband, so that A and B both heard about a cheater, and therefore didn't shave their own husband. They then realise that as they had only heard of one cheater, and the fact they had deduced there were two, that the other cheater had to be their own husband. The next morning both A and B would shave the husbands.

So it stands that if there are nine cheaters, each of the nine cheated wives hear of eight cheaters, and when no one is shaved on the 8th morning following the announcement, they all realise that there must be another cheater out there, who they don't know about i.e their own husband. So on the 9th morning all nine wives shave their husband.

Hmm... this is oddly familiar. I wonder what gave you this idea.... .

*gasp* You've been quoted on it!

hehe sorry, couldn't resist

Back on topic, andromeda has a good point... this offers an escapism from reality, and in times of economic downturn, like the Great Depression, or now, escapism (like movies, alcohol, etc) skyrockets. This is no different... and the media is getting some more viewership from their escapist drama on the swine flu, I'm sure. Great point, andromeda

The only problem is if you have a ticket for a big music festival this summer, you may be dissapointed, as the media's constant string of scare stories are apparently scaring the bands, and they're considering not attending...

I thought it seemed appropriate for this thread: http://xkcd.com/154/

I live in the UK - As far as I know, with the right visas, people are allowed to immigrate to the UK, and I think that within the EU, you don't need a visa. Immigrating also depends on the reason for it (e.g. work, education etc.). But I don't really know much about the subject.

Yeah you're right everyone within the EU can move freely around it. And I agree with you CookieMonster, they do no harm. In fact immigration stimulates nations, and is neccessary if you want your country to prosper.

Sorry to intrude, but I came across this post and I felt the urge to respond to it.

specific examples I think demonstrate the "take away religion - take away the problem" solution in modern day are:

No Muslims, no jihad. I think that this could be more aptly rephrased as: No unjust, unwarranted Western intervention in the Middle East for economic gains, no disillusioned, angered young Muslims, hating the West for tearing their region apart. As an example, a few days ago a US airstrike targeted Taleban members in northern Pakistan. The result of this was 100 or so dead civilians in a refugee camp.

No denominations within Islam, no conflicts within Afghanistan and Iraq (perhaps still conflicts with the rest of the world) - ???

No Judaism, no zionism - Isreal never would have been stolen from the Palestinians. - I'm afraid it would have. The West wanted a foothold in that region and the opportunity arose. The circumstances provided the 'justification', but no doubt, another would have been found.

Another note on Isreal, if there is a country likely to use nuclear weapons offensively against an enemy, it is Isreal. They have shown to be very pro-actively defensive (which means pre-emptively aggressive) or at least use a very real threat of which on many occasions. Again, remove their religious drive for a homeland promised to them by God, remove their need to fanatically defend said homeland. - Couldn't agree more with the first part. But remove the religion now, and Israel would still want to defend its 'homeland'.

Although I'm not a fan of organised religion, all of human conflict cannot be attributed to it. Humans will always wage war, it's in our nature, and maybe religion has been used to verify support, but without the religion in those cases, another justification would have been used.

Well from your suggestions I looked at Perl as a start, so I'm going through the basics of it now. It has nothing to do with trying to get a job in programming, it's just something I have been interested in for a while now but didn't know where to start. Also b/c I hope to do physics in university, I have an idea I'll need at least some background info on it. So hopefully through this I'll manage to "get into the mindset of a programmer" and go from there.

Thanks alot everyone for your help .

To programmers on BD:

The thing is that I'm interested in learning some form of computer programming, but unfortunately I have never had any hands-on exposure to it i.e I don't know where to start. Bearing in mind that I don't have any experience of programming and that I'm unsure of what I would even like to program, I was wondering could anyone here on BD point me towards a good website for learning the basics and whatever background knowledge is necessary to begin?

What language would any programmer here suggest to start off with? As I've said I'm not even sure of the kind of things I would like to program, so I have an open mind. Preferably something basic, a good platform from which I can bring the background skills and concepts to go on to more complex languages.

Thanks .

And face masks are ineffective anyway .

I was about to go to bed Bb...

We're arguing two different points.

No one here has said anything derogatory against those who believe. We are voicing against the fundamental inequalities.

Its an argument against those fundamentals, not the individuals. The teachings have ingrained themselves into society and government, that's where the line is.

I picked you up wrong, sorry. But I'm not for those 'fundamental inequalities' either, but it has appeared, IMO, a few times that individuals were ridiculed etc in a few of these threads. That's why I posted.

I completely agree with your whole statement, except for the end.

I agree, each to their own, let it be. It only becomes a serious issue when people are persecuted for no reason other than religion. For example, gay marriage. There is absolutely no reason against it other than religion. Come up with an economic or justifiable argument, I'll hear it out. I think religion has gained such a strangle hold on our government and society that the morally wrong teachings are affecting people's rights. I cite gay marriage only because it was the topic that set off some of the animosity, there are others.

That's what I meant by "Don't take this out of context". I DO NOT AGREE WITH PERSECUTION BASED ON RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS . Just to be clear. I don't see why you disagree with what I said? I'm clearly stating that I believe the type of discrimination outlined by you is wrong.

I hope this isn't taken out of context, as I agree as much as the next person that various religious teachings are wrong. But if someone believes in a God, and doesn't hate or discriminate against homosexuals [as an example] (I include many other things frowned upon by those teachings), then where's the problem? Let it be. Each to their own.