Wrath of Dagon

That includes minesweeper and solitaire.

I'm pretty sure US has the highest educational spending in the world, and no one teaches creationism.

That's the case in the US also.

Some more interesting info, taking the leaked documents into consideration: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100727/wl_time/08599200649300 Ain't that the truth.

Why wouldn't we? In any case, all leaders of sovereign countries are considered equal as far as showing appropriate respect, if not it's an insult to that country.

http://my2bucks.com/2009/11/18/how-dare-ob...bush-and-nixon/ Bush only bowed his head, not at the waist. It's perfectly appropriate to bow your head as a sign of respect in certain situations, especially to a priest of (almost) your own religion. Although the bow to the Saudi king doesn't look appropriate, but perhaps the picture is out of context. And no, neither one outranks the president of the US. Edit: Actually it looks like the Saudi king is putting some kind of medal on his neck, so nothing wrong with that either, although strictly speaking I would've advised against it.

You'd be surprised how many unbalanced people are out there. It's especially noticeable in companies with high turnover and high stress.

There's no such mentality. Most people in US see Britain as a close ally, nothing more, nothing less. I do think it's shameful that Obama sent the bust of Churchill back, but this is also the first US president ever to go around bowing to foreign potentates, so who the hell knows what he's thinking? And BP does have a lot to answer for, no matter what their initials stand for. I think a lot of their stock is owned by Americans also, and Exxon certainly didn't get a pass for a much smaller disaster.

I think the fundamental problem in the game industry is that most games cost more than they're ever likely to bring back in revenues. Having said that those kinds of problems are common in small companies in most industries, they really run the gamut from great to awful.

I normally assume regular posters on here are truthful, unless there's a reason to believe otherwise. And what elementary mistakes have I made?

I'd bet you never took a probability class either.

There's a new thread on the forum showing how the text adventures would work in the game (this would be used in quests a lot): http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index...pic,1596.0.html

The same way you always do. P(A and B) means: "If I were to repeat A and B an infinite number of times, what fraction of the time would both A and B occur?" You are confusing P(A and B) with P(A|B). The two are not the same thing. OK, so it is a matter of definitions as you say. I can have just as consistent a framework if I define any past event as having probability 1. And you can say that unlikely events are occuring every time you draw cards by your definition. None of it matters in practice though, because the only events we should consider as likely or unlikely are the ones it's possible to bet on, for the lack of a better definition. For example, saying some unlikely sequence of cards will happen does nothing to enable you to bet on that sequence. Saying a particular sequence (or a set of sequences) will happen enables you to compute odds and bet on that sequence and see if you've won or lost once the trial happens.

OK, so you say probability of P(A and B) is always P(A) * P(B). So given that A has already happened, how do you compute P(A and B)?

So every time you draw five cards a very unlikely event occurs. You have a very strange definition of "unlikely".

No, I'm saying for two independent events A and B, if you want to calculate P(A and B) before the trial, it's P(A) * P(B). If you know A already happened, then it's 1 * P(B) = P(B). If you have a formula for calculating the chance of a hand in Blackjack, and you need to calculate the odds knowing that certain cards have already been discarded, you would just substitute 0's for the cards already discarded, not derive a brand new formula just for that situation. As far as an event being a particular sequence, that is only true if the sequence can be defined before the trial, because if you can define it, the odds can be calculated. Otherwise it's just "some sequence" and it only becomes defined after the trial, and the chance of getting that sequence during that particular trial is 1, because it already happened. (and the chances of "some" sequence are also 1, which is how they're related)

So you're saying you guessed 1 number out of 37 correctly 9 times out of 10? That is indeed incredible and I have to admit I was wrong about low chance events not happening. Too bad there was no money involved, but of course it never happens then, heh. That's just wrong, sorry, the event that occurred had a probability of 1 of occurring, as I said. You're going back to the irrelevant debate of definitions. I'm going to define probability in this way: "if I were to repeat the experiment an infinite number of times, the probability of this result is the fraction of the time that this result would occur." This is a perfectly valid frequentist definition of probability, and as you can clearly see, when probability is thus defined it certainly does not "become 1" after an event has occurred. The experiment in this case is drawing several cards from a deck. The result is the exact sequence that I first got when I drew cards from the deck. It should be obvious that if I were to repeat that experiment an infinite number of times, that specific sequence would not come up 100% of the time, thus saying that the probability of that event is 1 because it already happened is complete nonsense with that definition of probability. I've gone over this several times in this thread, and this is the last time. No, I meant the probability of the event was 1 because the probability of drawing some sequence is 1, not because it already happened, although these things are related. As far as definition of the probability of a past event being 1, that's required by the probability theory I'm familiar with, don't know which one you're talking about, if that's not the case, how do you compute the probability of two independent events, one of which has already happened?

That's just wrong, sorry, the event that occurred had a probability of 1 of occurring, as I said.

Sounds quite non-sensical, don't see the appeal of watching a dream, but it's getting rave reviews.

OK, I understand that's your position, there's no point in repeating it ad infinitum.

Here's the actual Bio thread in question: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/14...209421&lf=8 (from Game Banshee)

Are those the only developers you buy from?

How do you know which ones those are?

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29292/A...Happy_Place.php Some of the comments are quite interesting too.

See my edit in the post you're quoting, I took most of that back already. I still want Wals to verify we understood him correctly, because indeed what he seems to be recounting would be like someone buying a single ticket and winning the lottery, then buying another ticket and winning again. As far as the aces example, I stand by what I said about a certain set of sequences being far more likely than another set. Exactly, that's the crux of the matter. The event that happened is that you drew a sequence of cards, and the probability of that event is 1, because you have to draw some sequence. Had you predicted that exact sequence, then the event would be you drew a specific sequence, with the huge odds.