Say there is a competition to guess how many jelly beans are in a jar, with the winner being whoever gets closest, and that the actual number of jelly beans is 100.

If I guessed 110 and you guessed 91, you would of course win, no question.

But what if I guessed 150 and you guessed 51… you would still win, right? According to simple person’s logic [and probably the rules of most such competitions] yes, of course you would.

Ok, now what if I guessed 200 and you guessed 1. By the logic of the above, you would still win, being off by 99 while I am out by 100. But when you look at it, this would be a rather absurd outcome– I mean, what sort of idiot would mistake 100 jelly beans for 1, right?

The reason is that what’s important when estimating an amount, population or size is the factor by which you are out, not just the difference between your guess and the true number.

In the first example above the guess of 91 is indeed better than 110 by this measure, but only just.

In the second the guess of 51 is off by a factor of nearly 2, whereas the guess of 150 is only off by a factor of 1.5.

In the third example we have an error factor of 100 vs 2! I wonder how such a result would be judged in a guessing competition? Assuming they stick with evaluating the winner by the simple numerical difference then one would be well advised to try to underestimate the count in such a challenge, because you will gain an unfair statistical advantage by doing so.

One reason I am thinking about such things is in response to a simple but infuriating puzzle question from Richard Wiseman’s blog:

Imagine that you live on the moon.  One day you see a number 14 bus. What is the most likely number of bus routes on the moon?

(assume bus routes are numbered consecutively, ie there must be at least 14 routes)

He claims the best answer is in fact 14 (his explanation), but my answer is 27 and I’m sticking with it, due to the logic discussed above combined with my rationale as described in the comment I left here.

Feel free to read the various answers and comments in his post and then come back here and tell me I’m wrong– I dare you.

Pictured here is Chinese artist Liu Bolin’s tribute[?] to Obama, being that he is “so hot right now.” I can’t find a lot of information but it looks like it’s designed to burn without being consumed (via flammable gas coming from little holes in the form).

I like the Man On Fire imagery, and it looks like tea-bagging reactionary bigots like it too, although not for the same reasons.

Some choice comments from Free Republic‘s post on the subject:

This will only serve to lend credence to the idea that emperor bammy is a flamer.

-

The offensive artist needs to make an exculpatory donation to the Ignited Negro College Fund…

-

The offensive artist needs to make an exculpatory donation to the Ignited Negro College Fund…

ROTFLMWAO!

-

I just wonder if the guy′s been approved for an NEA grant.

If this were Bush (”burning Bush” hahahaha), we′d all be condemning this and I don′t care to see an American president besmirched in this way by foreigners, even if he is one whom I have major disagreements with. So, to be consistent, I disapprove of this form of artistic expression however, if he at least didn′t use our tax dollars to create it, I defend his right to express himself.

Say, anyone got that painting of ex-Chicago Mayor Harold Washington in a dress? That′s what this reminds me of. Watch the liberal media and the poverty pimps have a cow if this is brought to their attention.

by … (“Barack Obama” is Swahili for “Bend over suckahs”.)

-

The offensive artist needs to make an exculpatory donation to the Ignited Negro College Fund…

Members include Michael Jackson and Richard Pryor.

-

Wonder if this was just the artist′s way of making obammy a little ‛blacker′?

-

A coming tarring and feathering gone wrong….

-

obongo looks good with his head on fire.

U-S-A! U-S-A! You’re Number One! You’re Number One!

I just received a link to this article from my sister, and have to admit I’m kind of shocked that this is even an issue (I actually thought they weren’t encouraging religious propaganda in public schools any more, especially not in a way that disadvantaged the religiously unaffiliated).

Did you know that children whose parents make a conscientious decision to have them opt out of Special Religious Education (SRE) are prohibited from any form of instruction during this period? NSW Department of Education policy provides for the supervision of these children but specifies they are not to have access to ‘ethics, values, civics or general religious education.’

Not surprisingly, many view the existing policy as socially and psychologically unjust – all students are entitled to meaningful instruction, ethical exploration and the associated benefits.

Based on mounting community interest and support, St James Ethics Centre, has proposed a pilot project (PDF) to test the concept of offering an ethics-based complement to scripture. The proposal awaits the approval of the Hon Verity Firth, NSW Minister of Education and Training.

It’s such an underhanded trick to push religion like this; pretending that you are offering a choice when the choice is between talking about Jesus and doing nothing.

Sign the petition encouraging Minister Firth to say yes!

I am one of those awful atheists Greg Craven slandered in his recent article in the Age, and just wanted to note my horror at realizing that he is not just some frothing-at-the-mouth bigot in the street, but rather the Vice-Chancellor of a university and a professor in law. This sets a terrible example for any institution at which he serves, and makes the following passage from his profile page on the ACU website ring very hollow:

Australian Catholic University (ACU National), established as Australia’s only Catholic, national, publicly funded university, is open to all. The University empowers its students and staff with a strong sense of social responsibility and concern for the moral and ethical dimensions of their study and their professional and personal lives.

There is nothing open or inclusive about only respecting those who agree to shut up and never criticize you. The invective spewed towards atheists (without any examples, merely hyperbolic exaggerations) was so much worse than anything I have seen from an atheist (even the “brash, noisy and confident” kind he references). Someone who holds such a high and representative office at your institution should be held accountable for such hateful public invective.

Yours with more respect than your VC would ever grant me,

Mark Pursey

__________

If you’d like to contact the ACU and let them know your thoughts about their publicly funded Vice-Chancellor, you can reach his office at vc@acu.edu.au.

Well, it’s been quite an experience living and working in New Zealand these last four years. I arrived debt-ridden and in temporary remission from a [not yet diagnosed] chronic condition, and have since dug myself out of that particular financial hole and found a treatment regime that appears to keep me permanently well. But being now in the latter part of my 30′s I am feeling a kind of ennui as well as that mid-life-crisis feeling pressing down on me hard, so I am doing what my gut tells me– which is to pick up and move on to the next chapter of this adrenalin-soaked lifestyle I lead.

I’ll be finishing up at work in early January and probably leaving NZ at the end of February. Before I go I will hopefully take the chance to explore a little of the country which I still haven’t got around to doing even though I’ve been here for more than ten percent of my life. Time really does fly.

I have no Big Plan yet, planning to just enjoy having loads and loads of free time again, but I have lots of little plans; which involve things like getting back to all my own software I’ve abandoned these last few years. People have been asking for ages when I’ll get back to Drivey development, and when I’ll release an update to Jujuedit, and the answer to both of these questions is either 2010 or never (hopefully it will be the former). Something that might be worth considering is developing Drivey for the iPhone. It would be a nice way to explore the platform– and get rich when a million people download it of course ;)

I also plan to read a lot of books (currently I only get through about 2 per annum) and do at least a little bit of travelling, because I’ll be kicking myself if I don’t. Of course there’s always the thought of writing something– does anyone not entertain such a notion? – but to be honest I’m thinking that’s probably not going to happen; If I can’t get around to reading a book it’s hard to imagine I’ll find the motivation or discipline to write one, but you never know. If I do it probably won’t be a novel in the strictest sense.

Here’s a quote from Ray, defending his bowdlerized edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species…

In Darwin’s book, nothing is as God created it. Instead, all of creation miraculously evolved–from the bear’s mouth to the giraffe’s tail. For some reason, it has all reached the point of maturity during our lifetime and (after millions of years of redundancy) now functions as it was intended. Move over, J.R.R. Tolkien, Arthur C. Clarke, and J.K. Rowling. These three combined don’t hold a candle to Charles Darwin. Most of their fans know that their writings were fantasy. Darwin’s faithful followers don’t.

In one paragraph he once again demonstrates that he still doesn’t understand shit about evolution– either that or he is simply lying for Jesus; and neither interpretation is particularly flattering.

Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, responds, in what is to be the first exchange of many with this pathological halfwit.

Unfortunately, it will be hard to thoroughly read the version that Comfort will be distributing on college campuses in November. The copy his publisher sent me is missing no fewer than four crucial chapters, as well as Darwin’s introduction. Two of the omitted chapters, Chapters 11 and 12, showcase biogeography, some of Darwin’s strongest evidence for evolution.

__________

UPDATE: The halfwit responds with some of his patented evasive turdery, bleating about no one showing him any evidence for “transitional” fossils (even though he has whined incessantly about this for years and been provided with countless examples) and Eugenie smacks him down hard:

Comfort complains that I didn’t provide enough detail in my brief essay about those fossil whales. You want a list of fossil whales showing the transitional features marking the evolutionary transition from land animal to marine, such as changes in the ears, nostrils, and limbs? Indohyus, Icthyolestes, Pakicetus, Nalacetus, Remingtonocetus, Ambulocetus… Never mind. Start here, for a nontechnical review by a team of whale paleontologists.