threesome sex toilet cam gangbangs gangbang squad family orgies texas secretary of state gay orgy teen orgy threesome group masturbation ffm be your own boss lesbian orgy gangbang squad threesome girls pee standing up threesomes office upskirt wife thr...

So the stock for these companies has gone down then?

People will argue this one with me until they're blue in the face, but after empirically testing the hypothesis, they always come around.

You really have to try to explain this to someone and then you will understand why the need for extra words.

Herb: I may be a bad boy; I am not sure yet. I assumed that you were railing at some imaginary malfeasance by officers of private corporations because they like to make a buck for their stockholders.

Attempting to place oil executives under oath in a committee hearing was a stupid, and insulting publicity stunt by the Dumbocrats. They were only interested in pictures for their MSN toadies.

Long playing government bungling has led to the sad plight of the Airline Industry. We all regret the upheavals energy cost, and increased safety costs has brought.

However, the unions are not blameless. They have priced themselves out of the affordable range of the airlines. Union pension and health care costs, are way above the norm for wage earning and non-government salary earning America.

I thought you were swinging like a bloke, so I called you a bloke. Being a bloke is not bad; being rude may be. If you were not railing, then I was wrong to assume you were.

As I said earlier I saw this at Dean's World in what was probably late 2002 or early 2003. To finally convince myself that solution of switching was correct I had to change my belief to being that switching was correct, instead of trying to prove it wrong. The million door selection analogy also helped me visualize the problem.

Wow RJN, What is a "bloke". You must be a liney or an Ausse. If you would have bothered to read my comment, you would know that the so called "market forces" is what I was commenting about. Perhaps what you did read just didn't sink in and that is ok with me, but next time, reply with a comment that would provide a reasonable answer.

As for the last part of your comment, again, you don't know what the hell you are talking about and your guessing leaves a lot to be desired. And for your information, I am retired from many years in the Airline Industry that is not supported by the taxpayer. The tax supported airlines and aircraft manufacturers are common in the EU. Not Here Bloke.

But don't you get both doors either way? That is, Monty's giving you one free door plus either your original door or another. Either way, you know the "new" door doesn't have the prize.

I know this works mathematically but this explanation doesn't help make it more intuitive.

Amusingly, when I played around at the Java site linked in the comments above, it took me well over forty iterations to finally get behind by sticking to my original every time and I got bored before I fell below 44%. Their explanation is similar to Rodney's:

Assume that the dealer does not show you the one losing card. In that case, the dealer is saying to you, “Keep your card or choose the other two cards.” Even though you know it can’t be both of those cards, you know there is a 66 percent chance that you will win by switching.

That's of course true.

Dang it! How dare you come up with an elegant way of explaining the problem.

grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter

Actually it does matter. Most people just don't get this at first (some never ever get it). It highlights that people are not rational when it comes to evlauation of probabilities...this applies to real life not just game shows. Such as insurance policies, investing, and so forth. The game show example, is just a cute way of showing that most people don't think according to the laws of probability.

Deskmerc,

Dang, I should have googled for such website. Nice find.