HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller)
Subject: Re: Monty Hall / Shell Game / Dixie Cups
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:34:20 GMT
Organization: Right Bleedin' Church of Libertine Obfuscatology

In <1992Dec18.202554.29968@cs.odu.edu> carr@fog.cs.odu.edu (Eric Carr) writes:

>...But suppose there were, for every time the door was opened, TWO players
>each standing in front of one of the doors. (The third player having already
>been disappointed by being told he/she was the proud owner of a goat.)
>Wouldn't BOTH of these players supposedly statistically benefit from switching,
>if the 2/3 answer were correct?

>	The logic seemed OK to me until I thought of this aspect... Now I'm
>truly confused! 8-) I'd appreciate it if someone could explain this facet of
>the problem. I don't really care if I'm right or wrong -- I'd just like to know.

This is the most interesting objection I have heard.  

The answer is not too complicated:  If they players originally made their
guess RANDOMLY, then yes they benefit from switching.

But if player A gets door 1, and Player B must select from door 2 or 3,
then the probability space is changed.

It is not the same problem unless all three players selected their doors
INDEPENDENTLY, and have the option of choosing the same door.

-- 
    / \      Reverend fnord                 | "King Kong died for your sins!"
   /   \     fnord@panix.com                | 
  / <0> \                                   | "Don't just eat a hamburger, 
 /_______\   Church of Obfuscatology, Inc.  |  eat the HELL out of it!"
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: kpearce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (BULLDAWG)
Subject: Re: Car Batteries die in the Winter - Why?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:38:41 GMT

In article <Bz7EzH.9xq.1@cs.cmu.edu> redmond+@cs.cmu.edu (Redmond English) writes:
>
>Hello,
>
>  My car battery just up and died the other day.  I have been
>informed that this happens a lot in the winter, but I can't
>think of any reasonable explanation.
>
>  Any ideas?
>
>                             Red/.


As a chemist, I can tell you with utmost security that the battery dies 
because a chemical reaction is used to produce a potential differnce (voltage)
across your battery terminals.  Without going into details, when exothermic
reactions are cooled, the driving forces (which depend on temperature) are
diminished and therefore the potential is smaller.

As a consequence, if one were to take that battery inside for a while and
warm it up and then try again, it just might start your car up  }:)

But there is one more aspect of cold weather that cause more than just a 
reduction of your cars voltage....  the very same processes prevent your
battery from being recharged effectivally after it expends energy starting the
car by the alternator.

Ken ( really, I am a chemist) Pearce

Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:20:20 -0500 
From: "Stephen M. Lacy" <sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Monty Hall / Shell Game / Dixie Cups

Excerpts from netnews.alt.folklore.science: 15-Dec-92 Re: Monty Hall /
Shell Game.. by Kevin Stock@isfrance.enc 
> There are three doors, one of which hides a car, the other two hide
> goats.  So, there are three possibilities:

I was just thinking about this again, and I thought of this, and I'm
really not sure if you can make some propabilistic statemtent about it. 
In many cases, Monty will have one "really good" prize, and one "sorta
good" prize, and one real dog.  So, You have the following choices:

Car:       Really good
Furniture: Good
Goat:      Bad.

So, the contestant picks the car, does Monty show the goat or the
furniture?  I'm assuming that he shows the furniture -- a "look what you
passed up, but do you have something better" kind of statement.  So,
they switch, and they get th goat, finding out that they used to have
the car.  

P.S.  This sounds a lot like the "utility" functions that are used in
some Artificial Intelligence algorithms.  I know there's a way to use
the utility trees to figure out what you should do, but I don't remember
how (yes, I could look it up if I were motivated to do so) 

Steve


"No matter what happens, never believe that you have learned something
you were not supposed to know." -Steve Lacy

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: wingo@apple.com (Tony Wingo)
Subject: Re: Car Batteries die in the Winter - Why?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:30:26 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer
Followup-To: alt.folklore.science

In article <1992Dec15.174955.15704@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
baylor@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM wrote:
> 
> In article <92350.120917FFAAC03@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be>, <FFAAC03@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be> writes:
> >Too bad.  Just when you need a stronger battery because of the higher
> >viscosity (is this an English word?) of the oil in your motor,
> >it gets weaker.  Tsss.
> >
> That's why they make 10W40 oil. It's supposed to have a more constant
> viscosity over a wide range of temperature than a "single weight" oil.

Yeah, but at subzero temps even 10W40 or 5W40 turns to molasses.  Thats why
cars in places like Alaska often have permenently installed electric block
heaters.  (My brother, who lives in Alaska, once set a truck on fire trying
to warm the engine pan up with a torch.  Live and learn, i guess...)

-tony

>>usual disclaimer<<
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,rec.arts.sf.science
From: treitel@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM (Richard Treitel)
Subject: Re: The Marching Morons (was Re: Cindy the Disco Queen)
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:19:49 GMT
Organization: preferably none

In article <15DEC199216015557@rover.uchicago.edu>, frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger) writes:

	[stuff deleted]

|> 	While I strongly believe that a bumbling bureacureacy is a major
|> 	burden on the Chicago schools, I still believe that money is the
|> 	major tail that wags the dog of education.

	[much stuff deleted]

This is PC baloney.  Even if you leave out the fact that many countries
spend less on education than the U.S. and get better results, there are
also studies done within the U.S. that find low to no causation between
expenditure and results.  Educational results do, however, improve a lot
as the parents' socioeconomic class goes up, simply because they care.
Middle-class kids do better in school because they have middle-class
parents, not because they go to expensive schools.

Catholic schools are a standard example in the U.S., spending less
money than state schools (& hiring fewer bureacrats) but doing better.

We are getting rather far from any xyz.science newsgroup's real subject ...
at least in Kornbluth's work, the smart ones bothered to take care of
the morons, and had some time left over for themselves after doing so.

|> 	B/ With a current (15 year) history of property taxes rising at the
|> 	   rate of 12% a year, by the time I retire, I will be spending 100%
|> 	   of my income paying property taxes.

So get on alt.politics.clinton and figure out how to get more school for
the money.
		- Richard
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: pjswan@engin.umich.edu (Peter Swanson)
Subject: Re: Electric Field Question
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 23:16:22 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <PETER.92Dec3132059@cancun.icad.com> peter@icad.com (Peter Masters) writes:
>In article <2DEC199216372847@rover.uchicago.edu> frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger) writes:
>
>   In article <2DEC199211141705@rosie.uh.edu>, st1rl@rosie.uh.edu writes...
>
>>   To give you an idea of how minute the differences are, I hust heard
>>   this today in conference.
>
>>   Men have a statistically significant greater incidence of skin cancer
>>   on the left arm, while women have the same for the right arm. Guess why.
>
>Because more men wear their wristwatches on the left arm.  Low level
>EMF.
>
Because more men used to wear wristwatches with radium dials on
the left arm?


-- 
| Peter J. Swanson                   |  pjswan@caen.engin.umich.edu        |
| PhD Pre-Candidate                  |  controls specialist                |
| Electrical Engineering:Systems     | Fortunately, ah keep muh feathuhs   |
| University of Michigan             | numbahd for just such ahn emergency.|
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: markm@bigfoot.sps.mot.com (Mark Monninger)
Subject: Re: Hot Water flow mystery.
Reply-To: rapw20@email.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:03:12 GMT

You probably have the stem-and-washer type faucet (rather than the  
so-called 'washerless' type). As the water heats up, the stem also gets  
warmer and expands, pushing the washer toward the seat...exactly as if you  
had turned it off. The noise is from vibration somewhere in the system,  
most likely the washer itself or the stem. Replace the faucet with a  
washerless type and both problems will go away.

Mark
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Subject: Re: Avogadro Number
Reply-To: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 06:42:04 GMT

In article <wf_Eage00WB79IkpAh@andrew.cmu.edu> gb29+@andrew.cmu.edu (Guntur N Balaji) writes:
>Just wondering how Avogadro got to his number.  6.023E23 atoms....
>Looks like the mysterious Eddington number.  Can someone give a
>plausible explanation and substantiate Avogadro's number.  Looks like
>the explanation must be simple, as I can't think of somebody suggesting
>such a number without knowing quantum theory and etc...:-)

  The number is intended (and in fact is defined) to make the mass
in grams of one mole of a substance equal the atomic mass of the
constituent particles.  In particular, it's defined as the number of
particles in 12 grams of Carbon-12, as 1 atomic mass unit is defined as
1/12 the mass of the Carbon-12 atom.

  I believe that for a significant length of time, the value of
Avogadro's number was not in fact known, so chemists just used the
number of moles they had without worrying about how many particles
this represented (as there was no way of finding this out.)

--
Jonathan Lennox
jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
From: mrice@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Matt Rice)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Non-Relflecting object
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:40:11 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

The object would look like a 4 x 8 rectangle of absolute blackness.

-----------------------------
random punchline of the day:
"The theoretical physicist says, "Ok, assume we have a can opener..."
----matt
mrice@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
From: vest@novavax.UUCP (Steven Vest)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re^2: Electric Field Question
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:26:00 GMT
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

>>>   Men have a statistically significant greater incidence of skin cancer
>>>   on the left arm, while women have the same for the right arm. Guess why.
>>
>>Because more men wear their wristwatches on the left arm.  Low level
>>EMF.
>>
>Because more men used to wear wristwatches with radium dials on
>the left arm?

Because men usually do the driving for a couple and put their left arms
out the window and vice-versa?







-- 
========================== vest@novavax.nova.edu =============================
= Steven Vest: Electronic Reference Librarian: Nova University, Ft. Ldl, FL  =
=      Anything you see by me is just MY opinion.  Don't blame Nova.         =
=================Life is strange. Yeah, but compared to what?=================
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Full moon and tides
Date: 17 Dec 1992 00:58:31 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <ugobmw6@Unify.Com>, grp@Unify.com (Greg Pasquariello) writes:
=In article <1992Dec14.153154.22191@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, markm@bigfoot.sps.mot.com (Mark Monninger) writes:
=> 
=> Over the weekend, I heard a network news commentator say that high winds  
=> and a full moon caused (or made worse) the higher-than-usual tide that  
=> caused so much damage along the northeast coast. What does a full moon  
=> have to do with it? I find it hard to believe that a full moon has any  
=> effect on the tides. The mass of the moon, and hence its gravitational  
=> pull on the ocean doesn't change, nor does its distance from the earth (at  
=> least not because the moon is full). The only thing that really changes is  
=> that we on earth can see more of the moon. Is this an urban legend or  
=> what?
=
=
=I never know whether questions in this group are legit or not.  Feh.  On
=the assumption that this one is...
=
=The moon is (mostly) what causes high tides.  Picture the following... as
=the moon sweeps around the earth, its gravitational pull tugs at the earth.
=When over water, a swell develops where the pull is strongest (i.e. the
=water is being "pulled" toward the moon).  High tide is the swell approaching
=shore.

You haven't answered his question, which was "What does a FULL moon have to do
with an exceptionally high tide."  The answer is that when the tidal effects of
the sun and the moon reinforce each other (as they do during full and new
moons), you get larger than average tides.

You also missed the fact that on the side of the Earth away from the moon,
where the moon's gravitational pull is the smallest, you've also got a high
tide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: mayor@ee.umanitoba.ca (Cam "You didn't see me!" Mayor)
Subject: Re: Shell Game (Dixie cups work too)
Reply-To: mayor@ee.umanitoba.ca
Organization: Elect & Comp Engineering, U of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba,Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:18:05 GMT

In article 19071@dbsun.uucp, check@dbsun.uucp (checkett) writes:
>Subject: Shell Game (Dixie cups work too)
>
>Here's a slick little brain teaser I ran across.   Don't let the title
>bother you, there's no slight-of-hand involved, just straight logic.
>
>Description of game:
>The game is played by two people, a dealer, and a player.
>The game uses three upside-down cups and one quarter.
>The player attempts to guess which cup conceals the quarter.
>
>Action:
>The dealer secretly places the quarter under one of the three cups.
>The player is asked to point to the cup of his choice.
>After the player makes his choice, the dealer removes one of the empty cups.
>Two upside-down cups remain, the one the player picked, and a second cup.
>One of which hides the quarter.
>The player is given the option to switch to the second cup or stay with 
>his original selection.
>
>Here's the questions:
>Should the player switch to the other cup or stay pat?
>What are the odds?
>

This is an oldie, but a good one.  Statistically, you will reap a better chance
if you SWITCH your choice.  If you switch, you have a 66.7% chance of winning.
If not, you only have 33.3% chance.  

Now watch the violent flames ensue! ;0

cam, who has done an in-depth study of this problem.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Monty Hall / Shell Game / Dixie Cups
Date: 19 Dec 1992 13:46:45 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec18.202554.29968@cs.odu.edu>, carr@fog.cs.odu.edu (Eric Carr) writes:
>...But suppose there were, for every time the door was opened, TWO players
>each standing in front of one of the doors. (The third player having already
>been disappointed by being told he/she was the proud owner of a goat.)
>Wouldn't BOTH of these players supposedly statistically benefit from switching,
>if the 2/3 answer were correct?

No.  The point is that Monty has to open a door that:
	1)  Wasn't chosen; and
	2)  Had no prize behind it.
Your scenario doesn't allow this.  In particular, even if you have only two
people, there's a 1/3 chance that the door neither picked has the prize, so
Monty doesn't have a door that he's allowed to open.

>	The logic seemed OK to me until I thought of this aspect... Now I'm
>truly confused! 8-) I'd appreciate it if someone could explain this facet of
>the problem. I don't really care if I'm right or wrong -- I'd just like to know.

By adding a second contestant, you've changed the scenario.  If Monty is
allowed to open a door, then each contestant has a 50% chance of winning.  If
Monty is NOT allowed to open a door (because both contestants have picked
losers) both contestants have a 100% chance of winning by picking the door
Monty's not allowed to opoen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Monty Hall / Shell Game / Dixie Cups
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:35:43 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Dec18.202554.29968@cs.odu.edu> carr@fog.cs.odu.edu (Eric Carr) writes:
>...But suppose there were, for every time the door was opened, TWO players
>each standing in front of one of the doors. (The third player having already
>been disappointed by being told he/she was the proud owner of a goat.)
>Wouldn't BOTH of these players supposedly statistically benefit from switching,
>if the 2/3 answer were correct?

No.  The other person who would benefit would be the third player who now owns
a goat, since Monty would have opened the door in front of the *other* goat
if he were playing alone.

The players who pick the goats both will benefit, since Monty shows them the
goat that they *didn't* pick, leaving them to switch and get the car.

	- kitten
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Long hair causes boldness???
Keywords: hair, long, gravitypull, boldness
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:36:36 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

wsbusr3@rw6.urc.tue.nl (Pieter Filius) writes:

RE: the subject line
Answer: SAMSON
Clue: Spelling!
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Science vs technology
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:19:59 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1gkmcsINNhuf@emmental.csv.warwick.ac.uk> mapac@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr H M Brown) writes:
>
>
>	I'm not certain if this is the correct newsgroup for such a discussion
> but I'm interested to hear other peoples views.
>	About a week ago I was involved in an argument ( lubricated by a little
>alchoholic refreshment :-)  ) about science and technology, the basic points 
>discussed were as follows.
>	I personally consider science to be the search for answers, trying to
>discover why things work. This is an ultimately futile attempt since no 
>matter what answers you arrive at the question why can still be asked.
>	For example consider Newton's law of gravity, it states that two 
>objects attract each other in proportion to the product of their masses, and
>inversely to their distance apart. Why? Einstien says that this is because they
>warp space-time around them, hence they are able to be seen to act upon each
>other at a distance. Why do they distort space-time ?  and so on and so forth.
>Thus while the Newton gives an excellent description of what is occurring it
>still leaves a host of questions unanswered. In a sense it focuses the area of
>doubt, we know why objects fall to the ground, planets orbit the sun etc IF we
>know why there is this force between them.

Science is *not* really concerned about "why". It deals more with "how".

>	Technology on the other hand I consider to be the search for things 
>that work. i.e. the question why is not the motivating force, tangible results 
>are what is important here. So for a 'technologist' Newton's gravity is fine
>since it gives us the results wanted. i.e. How to navigate to the moon, orbits
>for satellites etc. 
>	The question is which should motivate a modern scientist ? Are 
>getting tangible results all that is necessary ? Are what I consider scientists
>actually philosophers ?

Maybe, if you think science asks the question "why".

	Tero Sand
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Non-Relflecting object
Date: 14 Dec 1992 17:27:41 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <dwarner.18@milo.ub.com>, dwarner@milo.ub.com (Dave Warner) writes:
=
=Okay, so suppose the existance of an object that does not emit or reflect 
=anything in the visual spectrum.  The object is not transparent or 
=translucent.  Let the object assume the mass and dimensions of a 4 x 8 sheet 
=of marine plywood.
=
=What does it look like?

It looks like a black body attached to a 0K heat sink.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: peter@icad.com (Peter Masters)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Wrist cancer from watch (was Re: Electric Field Question)
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:20:59 GMT
	<PETER.92Dec3132059@cancun.icad.com> <1992Dec9.021249.201@gems.vcu.edu>
Organization: ICAD Inc., Cambridge, MA

In article <1992Dec9.021249.201@gems.vcu.edu> hleaves@gems.vcu.edu writes:

   In article <PETER.92Dec3132059@cancun.icad.com>, peter@icad.com (Peter Masters) writes:
   > In article <2DEC199216372847@rover.uchicago.edu> frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger) writes:
   > 
   >    In article <2DEC199211141705@rosie.uh.edu>, st1rl@rosie.uh.edu writes...
   > 
   > 	   To give you an idea of how minute the differences are, I hust heard
   > 	   this today in conference.
   > 
   > 	   Men have a statistically significant greater incidence of skin cancer
   > 	   on the left arm, while women have the same for the right arm. Guess why.
   > 
   > Because more men wear their wristwatches on the left arm.  Low level
   > EMF.
   > 
   > Peter Masters
   > peter@icad.com

   No way!!!! Sample size please?

One.

Peter
peter@icad.com