Telepathy - Page 8

John Jones · 6th September 2017, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by King of the Americas

Look, I am a grad student. This is an internet message board. I could care less about full citations and holding your hand through the intertubes.

[...]

OMFG! LOOK WHAT YOU WROTE!

A grad student in what discipline? A grad student at what institute of higher learning?

Jack by the hedge · 6th September 2017, 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by John Jones

A grad student in what discipline?

The "I could care less" bit makes me assume English.

Dave Rogers · 6th September 2017, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

But what do you do with someone who is reliable and honest and reports an outlandish claim that would seemingly be impossible to be mistaken about, unless the person was suffering from some disorder? Do you automatically assume they're lying, or have an actual disorder?

What you do is formulate a means of testing whether their claim has any veracity to it, and carry out that test. If you then carry it out repeatedly for decades and find no evidence that supports the claim, you're perfectly justified in rejecting it until somebody produces evidence more convincing than a series of anecdotes.

Dave

Cosmic Yak · 6th September 2017, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

But what do you do with someone who is reliable and honest and reports an outlandish claim that would seemingly be impossible to be mistaken about, unless the person was suffering from some disorder? Do you automatically assume they're lying, or have an actual disorder? And if similar people report similar phenomena, does that make the existence of the phenomena more and or less likely? If one eyewitness reports the suspect looked like X,Y,Z, that's one thing. But if all thirty people at the scene report X,Y,Z, that's another.

Your first sentence contradicts itself. If it is an outlandish claim it is perfectly possible to be mistaken about it: that's what makes it outlandish, and that's why your China example doesn't work.
As for your depiction of skeptics' assumptions, this is a false dichotomy often thrown out by woo-merchants and conspiracy theorists (see MicahJava in the JFK thread, for example). I, for one, do not automatically assume that someone who reports an incidence of whatever woo they are talking about, is insane or lying. They could simply be mistaken. Individuals can make mistakes, and groups can too. We're human: it happens to all of us, and is not uncommon.
It might clarify your point if you could give an example of an outlandish claim about which it would be impossible to be mistaken.

Jack by the hedge · 6th September 2017, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Your first sentence contradicts itself. If it is an outlandish claim it is perfectly possible to be mistaken about it: that's what makes it outlandish, and that's why your China example doesn't work.

The other reason it's a poor analogy is that a trip to China is not a single experience. It's a whole long chain of events and activities each of which can be recalled and checked against other memories for consistency. Even though you might have a dream about being in China and later be confused about whether you'd really done that, it wouldn't take you long to get round to asking yourself questions like "when did I do that?", "how did I get there?", "why was I there?" etc.

It really doesn't compare with, say, being absolutely convinced you passed uncle Charlie on the bus this morning, even though he died 20 years ago.

P.J. Denyer · 6th September 2017, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Spektator

Seems to me it would NOT be an option.

Doh! That was what I meant to write!

Crossbow · 6th September 2017, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by King of the Americas

Look, I am a grad student. This is an internet message board. I could care less about full citations and holding your hand through the intertubes.

What you are discussing is intuition...and ABSOLUTELY, some athletes can "read" setups better than others. The best athletes seem to "predict" better than others.

Well then if that is the case, then I hope that none of your professors are reading your brilliant postings about the space ships you have seen, the people from Atlantis that you say are real, and how there are a number of people with telepathic powers.

Dave Rogers · 6th September 2017, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Well then if that is the case, then I hope that none of your professors are reading your brilliant postings about the space ships you have seen, the people from Atlantis that you say are real, and how there are a number of people with telepathic powers.

If he's telepathic, why would they need to read the postings?

Dave

Crossbow · 6th September 2017, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

If he's telepathic, why would they need to read the postings?

Dave

Good point.

Also, if telepathy is real, then why do professors bother to provide the students with written tests?

Jim_MDP · 6th September 2017, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Good point.

Also, if telepathy is real, then why do professors bother to provide the students with written tests?

Because only special people are blessed with these extra-ordinary gifts.

And unlike those pedestrian intellectuals, KotA is one of the special people.

Oops... I switched definitions mid-post, didn't I? Sorry.

Loss Leader · 6th September 2017, 06:02 PM

It would be easier to create a test if KotA checked in.

Crossbow · 6th September 2017, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

It would be easier to create a test if KotA checked in.

KOA may be checking in via telepathic powers.

EHocking · 6th September 2017, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

If he's telepathic, why would they need to read the postings?

Dave

He IS telepathic.
He responds to the posts you thought about writing, not the one you sent.

That's why his replies in the thread have no bearing on the posts that he quotes.

Dave Rogers · 7th September 2017, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by EHocking

He IS telepathic.
He responds to the posts you thought about writing, not the one you sent.

So why didn't he mention the baby newts or the giant pencil sharpener?

Dave

Cosmic Yak · 7th September 2017, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

So why didn't he mention the baby newts or the giant pencil sharpener?

Dave

Don't ask, don't tell.

Darat · 7th September 2017, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Don't ask, don't tell.

You notice that Dave Rogers didn't mention the squid - KOA is probably trying to have his brain bleached as we post....

P.J. Denyer · 7th September 2017, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

So why didn't he mention the baby newts or the giant pencil sharpener?

Dave

S'right.

P.J. Denyer · 7th September 2017, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

S'right.

(and if there was an "Obscure Reference Award" you'd be nominated. Something something oranges something.)

Dave Rogers · 8th September 2017, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

(and if there was an "Obscure Reference Award" you'd be nominated. Something something oranges something.)

"Sometimes I have these thoughts, which are, like, inside my head."

Dave

P.J. Denyer · 8th September 2017, 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

"Sometimes I have these thoughts, which are, like, inside my head."

Dave

Uncle Waldo's patented bird identifying device still raises a smile.

King of the Americas · 24th September 2017, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

10 out of 52, numbers and suits.

I think I really like this test...!

Can we do ONE card a day, for 52 days, same time each day?

Maybe we could do just 7 days...I ten to get lazy, and I'm also a grad student, so free time is limited.

King of the Americas · 24th September 2017, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

I look through the cards at an exact time KotA decides, concentrating on each card for as long as he decided.

I then post the sequence her as a hash (with some nonsense words dropped in to make it harder to crack. KotA posts his sequence and we compare.

We can make it 5 cards. The probability would be 1:3.8 million.

We'll just need a secret third party, to confirm the accuracy of the guesses...?

How should that function, to make sure I couldn't have 'cheated'...?

Craig4 · 24th September 2017, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by King of the Americas

Look, I am a grad student. This is an internet message board. I could care less about full citations and holding your hand through the intertubes.

What you are discussing is intuition...and ABSOLUTELY, some athletes can "read" setups better than others. The best athletes seem to "predict" better than others.

https://youtu.be/om7O0MFkmpw

I'll just leave this here. You could care less?

p0lka · 24th September 2017, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

The "I could care less" bit makes me assume English.

Really? I was certain that saying "I could care less" was an American expression, they say it on their tv shows.
Over here in the UK everyone says "I couldn't care less".

Jack by the hedge · 24th September 2017, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by p0lka

Really? I was certain that saying "I could care less" was an American expression, they say it on their tv shows.

Over here in the UK everyone says "I couldn't care less".

I was sarcastically suggesting he was a student of English. Not that he was English.

I agree with you about the useage; I've never heard a British person say "I could care less".

Trebuchet · 24th September 2017, 12:40 PM

I've never heard an American say it either. At least without cringing. It literally bugs me more than "literally". But not as much as abuse of compound pronouns.

John Jones · 24th September 2017, 02:06 PM

Let's get on with the telepathy.

Wolrab · 24th September 2017, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by John Jones

Let's get on with the telepathy.

That's what I was thinking!

Donn · 25th September 2017, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

I've never heard an American say it either. At least without cringing. It literally bugs me more than "literally". But not as much as abuse of compound pronouns.

One literally could care less!

Rincewind · 26th September 2017, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by Donn

One literally could care less!

Or even couldn't care less!

HighRiser · 26th September 2017, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by John Jones

Let's get on with the telepathy.

Originally Posted by Wolrab

That's what I was thinking!

You two should get out of each others minds!

Startz · 26th September 2017, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by King of the Americas

We'll just need a secret third party, to confirm the accuracy of the guesses...?

How should that function, to make sure I couldn't have 'cheated'...?

So King of the Americas has returned and seems to be offering to do a test. Anyone going to take him up on it?

Jocko · 26th September 2017, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Startz

So King of the Americas has returned and seems to be offering to do a test. Anyone going to take him up on it?

Why not? I haven't been blamed for someone else's catastrophic failure since the election.

Jack by the hedge · 27th September 2017, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by Startz

So King of the Americas has returned and seems to be offering to do a test. Anyone going to take him up on it?

I'm still waiting for a real telepath to turn up. One who'll phone the number I'm thinking of, say the right word and win a grand.

Dave Rogers · 27th September 2017, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by King of the Americas

We'll just need a secret third party, to confirm the accuracy of the guesses...?

How should that function, to make sure I couldn't have 'cheated'...?

That's covered in the "I then post the sequence here as a hash" bit, isn't it? LL posts an encrypted version of the sequence, you post your sequence in clear, then LL posts the decryption key so anyone can compare the two. Sounds good enough to me, as it eliminates cheating while not requiring a third party.

Dave

Loss Leader · 27th September 2017, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by King of the Americas

We'll just need a secret third party, to confirm the accuracy of the guesses...?

How should that function, to make sure I couldn't have 'cheated'...?

I type the string of cards into this MD5 hash generator along with a nonsense word thrown in to keep it from being forcibly broken. I'll post it before you even make your guesses. It's easy to see if my sequence generates the same hash.

For example, the sequence of cards 3H 9H KS 9C and 10H might get a hash that looks like this:

a75009ee07ce72cd28e01dabdebe1047

You then make your guesses and, after you're done, I inform people that I encoded "Butterfly3H9HKS9C10H". Anyone can go to the MD5 generator, paste that in and get: a75009ee07ce72cd28e01dabdebe1047. The hashes are the same.

If I try to change even one letter, like telling people that I pulled the queen and not the king of spades, the whole hash changes. "Butterfly3H9HQS9C10H" creates the hash: 4751a47d3e977156c1c85974989a6124. That's not just a little bit different, it's completely and obviously different. It's a very efficient way to prevent cheating.

Startz · 27th September 2017, 06:34 AM

Okay King, are you good with the proposal? LL will pick five cards from a deck of 52 and post a hash. Then LL looks at a card for 5 minutes at a time you suggest. One card each of five consecutive days. Shortly after each time, you post publicly the card. After the fifth time, LL posts the answers. To score, you have to match all five exactly in order.

Will that work?

Loss Leader · 27th September 2017, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Startz

Okay King, are you good with the proposal? LL will pick five cards from a deck of 52 and post a hash. Then LL looks at a card for 5 minutes at a time you suggest. One card each of five consecutive days. Shortly after each time, you post publicly the card. After the fifth time, LL posts the answers. To score, you have to match all five exactly in order.

Will that work?

I had initially suggested the entire deck of 52 at an exact time of his choosing, concentrating on each for five seconds per card. He'd need to get 10 right to warrant further testing.

If he'd think he'd be stronger at remote viewing, I'll put five cards in an envelope and keep it for however long he wants. In that case, 4 out of 5 would be impressive enough to repeat the test.

Startz · 27th September 2017, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

I had initially suggested the entire deck of 52 at an exact time of his choosing, concentrating on each for five seconds per card. He'd need to get 10 right to warrant further testing.

If he'd think he'd be stronger at remote viewing, I'll put five cards in an envelope and keep it for however long he wants. In that case, 4 out of 5 would be impressive enough to repeat the test.

King, there you have it! Loss Leader has put out a couple of specific choices. Can you choose one and we can all see how things turn out?

abaddon · 27th September 2017, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Startz

Okay King, are you good with the proposal? LL will pick five cards from a deck of 52 and post a hash. Then LL looks at a card for 5 minutes at a time you suggest. One card each of five consecutive days. Shortly after each time, you post publicly the card. After the fifth time, LL posts the answers. To score, you have to match all five exactly in order.

Will that work?

Gosh no. The last thing psychics actually want is a real test. That, they avoid like the plague.

6th September 2017, 02:18 AM	#281
John Jones Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Iowa USA Posts: 12,131	Originally Posted by King of the Americas Look, I am a grad student. This is an internet message board. I could care less about full citations and holding your hand through the intertubes. [...] OMFG! LOOK WHAT YOU WROTE! A grad student in what discipline? A grad student at what institute of higher learning?
	__________________ "Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave

6th September 2017, 02:28 AM	#283
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 26,380	Originally Posted by Fudbucker But what do you do with someone who is reliable and honest and reports an outlandish claim that would seemingly be impossible to be mistaken about, unless the person was suffering from some disorder? Do you automatically assume they're lying, or have an actual disorder? What you do is formulate a means of testing whether their claim has any veracity to it, and carry out that test. If you then carry it out repeatedly for decades and find no evidence that supports the claim, you're perfectly justified in rejecting it until somebody produces evidence more convincing than a series of anecdotes. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

6th September 2017, 02:52 AM	#284
Cosmic Yak Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand. Posts: 1,996	Originally Posted by Fudbucker But what do you do with someone who is reliable and honest and reports an outlandish claim that would seemingly be impossible to be mistaken about, unless the person was suffering from some disorder? Do you automatically assume they're lying, or have an actual disorder? And if similar people report similar phenomena, does that make the existence of the phenomena more and or less likely? If one eyewitness reports the suspect looked like X,Y,Z, that's one thing. But if all thirty people at the scene report X,Y,Z, that's another. Your first sentence contradicts itself. If it is an outlandish claim it is perfectly possible to be mistaken about it: that's what makes it outlandish, and that's why your China example doesn't work. As for your depiction of skeptics' assumptions, this is a false dichotomy often thrown out by woo-merchants and conspiracy theorists (see MicahJava in the JFK thread, for example). I, for one, do not automatically assume that someone who reports an incidence of whatever woo they are talking about, is insane or lying. They could simply be mistaken. Individuals can make mistakes, and groups can too. We're human: it happens to all of us, and is not uncommon. It might clarify your point if you could give an example of an outlandish claim about which it would be impossible to be mistaken.
	__________________ Fortuna Faveat Fatuis

6th September 2017, 06:11 AM	#286
P.J. Denyer Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,533	Originally Posted by Spektator Seems to me it would NOT be an option. Doh! That was what I meant to write!
P.J. Denyer Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,533

6th September 2017, 08:01 AM	#287
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Charleston, WV Posts: 11,681	Originally Posted by King of the Americas Look, I am a grad student. This is an internet message board. I could care less about full citations and holding your hand through the intertubes. What you are discussing is intuition...and ABSOLUTELY, some athletes can "read" setups better than others. The best athletes seem to "predict" better than others. Well then if that is the case, then I hope that none of your professors are reading your brilliant postings about the space ships you have seen, the people from Atlantis that you say are real, and how there are a number of people with telepathic powers.
	__________________ 08 JAN 2018 > Trump says that he is "Like, Really Smart" and that he is "a Very Stable Genius". 11 JAN 2018 > During an Oval Office meeting, Trump asks "“Why are we having all these people from ****hole countries come here?”" A man's best friend is his dogma.

6th September 2017, 02:20 AM	#282
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 8,880	Originally Posted by John Jones A grad student in what discipline? The "I could care less" bit makes me assume English.

6th September 2017, 03:33 AM	#285
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 8,880	Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak Your first sentence contradicts itself. If it is an outlandish claim it is perfectly possible to be mistaken about it: that's what makes it outlandish, and that's why your China example doesn't work. The other reason it's a poor analogy is that a trip to China is not a single experience. It's a whole long chain of events and activities each of which can be recalled and checked against other memories for consistency. Even though you might have a dream about being in China and later be confused about whether you'd really done that, it wouldn't take you long to get round to asking yourself questions like "when did I do that?", "how did I get there?", "why was I there?" etc. It really doesn't compare with, say, being absolutely convinced you passed uncle Charlie on the bus this morning, even though he died 20 years ago.

6th September 2017, 08:03 AM	#288
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 26,380	Originally Posted by Crossbow Well then if that is the case, then I hope that none of your professors are reading your brilliant postings about the space ships you have seen, the people from Atlantis that you say are real, and how there are a number of people with telepathic powers. If he's telepathic, why would they need to read the postings? Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

6th September 2017, 08:04 AM	#289
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Charleston, WV Posts: 11,681	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers If he's telepathic, why would they need to read the postings? Dave Good point. Also, if telepathy is real, then why do professors bother to provide the students with written tests?
	__________________ 08 JAN 2018 > Trump says that he is "Like, Really Smart" and that he is "a Very Stable Genius". 11 JAN 2018 > During an Oval Office meeting, Trump asks "“Why are we having all these people from ****hole countries come here?”" A man's best friend is his dogma.

6th September 2017, 03:10 PM	#290
Jim_MDP Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: N.Cal/S.Or Posts: 6,208	Originally Posted by Crossbow Good point. Also, if telepathy is real, then why do professors bother to provide the students with written tests? Because only special people are blessed with these extra-ordinary gifts. And unlike those pedestrian intellectuals, KotA is one of the special people. Oops... I switched definitions mid-post, didn't I? Sorry.
	__________________ ---------------------- Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything. "Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust. "Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.

6th September 2017, 06:02 PM	#291
Loss Leader Do you want to date my Avatar? Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 24,981	It would be easier to create a test if KotA checked in.
	__________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. S^t L. Leader

6th September 2017, 07:11 PM	#292
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Charleston, WV Posts: 11,681	Originally Posted by Loss Leader It would be easier to create a test if KotA checked in. KOA may be checking in via telepathic powers.
	__________________ 08 JAN 2018 > Trump says that he is "Like, Really Smart" and that he is "a Very Stable Genius". 11 JAN 2018 > During an Oval Office meeting, Trump asks "“Why are we having all these people from ****hole countries come here?”" A man's best friend is his dogma.

6th September 2017, 11:57 PM	#293
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,536	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers If he's telepathic, why would they need to read the postings? Dave He IS telepathic. He responds to the posts you thought about writing, not the one you sent. That's why his replies in the thread have no bearing on the posts that he quotes.
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,536	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

7th September 2017, 12:31 AM	#294
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 26,380	Originally Posted by EHocking He IS telepathic. He responds to the posts you thought about writing, not the one you sent. So why didn't he mention the baby newts or the giant pencil sharpener? Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

7th September 2017, 03:42 AM	#295
Cosmic Yak Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand. Posts: 1,996	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers So why didn't he mention the baby newts or the giant pencil sharpener? Dave Don't ask, don't tell.
	__________________ Fortuna Faveat Fatuis

7th September 2017, 03:45 AM	#296
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 80,867	Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak Don't ask, don't tell. You notice that Dave Rogers didn't mention the squid - KOA is probably trying to have his brain bleached as we post....
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

7th September 2017, 03:55 PM	#297
P.J. Denyer Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,533	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers So why didn't he mention the baby newts or the giant pencil sharpener? Dave S'right.
P.J. Denyer Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,533

7th September 2017, 03:57 PM	#298
P.J. Denyer Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,533	Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer S'right. (and if there was an "Obscure Reference Award" you'd be nominated. Something something oranges something.)
P.J. Denyer Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,533

8th September 2017, 01:15 AM	#299
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 26,380	Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer (and if there was an "Obscure Reference Award" you'd be nominated. Something something oranges something.) "Sometimes I have these thoughts, which are, like, inside my head." Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

8th September 2017, 03:38 AM	#300
P.J. Denyer Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,533	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers "Sometimes I have these thoughts, which are, like, inside my head." Dave Uncle Waldo's patented bird identifying device still raises a smile.
P.J. Denyer Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,533

24th September 2017, 05:52 AM	#301
King of the Americas Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 6,513	Originally Posted by Loss Leader 10 out of 52, numbers and suits. I think I really like this test...! Can we do ONE card a day, for 52 days, same time each day? Maybe we could do just 7 days...I ten to get lazy, and I'm also a grad student, so free time is limited.

24th September 2017, 05:54 AM	#302
King of the Americas Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 6,513	Originally Posted by Loss Leader I look through the cards at an exact time KotA decides, concentrating on each card for as long as he decided. I then post the sequence her as a hash (with some nonsense words dropped in to make it harder to crack. KotA posts his sequence and we compare. We can make it 5 cards. The probability would be 1:3.8 million. We'll just need a secret third party, to confirm the accuracy of the guesses...? How should that function, to make sure I couldn't have 'cheated'...?

24th September 2017, 06:48 AM	#303
Craig4 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero. Posts: 15,635	Originally Posted by King of the Americas Look, I am a grad student. This is an internet message board. I could care less about full citations and holding your hand through the intertubes. What you are discussing is intuition...and ABSOLUTELY, some athletes can "read" setups better than others. The best athletes seem to "predict" better than others. https://youtu.be/om7O0MFkmpw I'll just leave this here. You could care less?

24th September 2017, 07:43 AM	#304
p0lka Muse Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 793	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge The "I could care less" bit makes me assume English. Really? I was certain that saying "I could care less" was an American expression, they say it on their tv shows. Over here in the UK everyone says "I couldn't care less".
p0lka Muse Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 793

24th September 2017, 10:10 AM	#305
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 8,880	Originally Posted by p0lka Really? I was certain that saying "I could care less" was an American expression, they say it on their tv shows. Over here in the UK everyone says "I couldn't care less". I was sarcastically suggesting he was a student of English. Not that he was English. I agree with you about the useage; I've never heard a British person say "I could care less".

24th September 2017, 12:40 PM	#306
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Great Northwet Posts: 16,118	I've never heard an American say it either. At least without cringing. It literally bugs me more than "literally". But not as much as abuse of compound pronouns.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

24th September 2017, 02:06 PM	#307
John Jones Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Iowa USA Posts: 12,131	Let's get on with the telepathy.
	__________________ "Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave

24th September 2017, 02:47 PM	#308
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 4,214	Originally Posted by John Jones Let's get on with the telepathy. That's what I was thinking!
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 4,214	__________________ "Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

25th September 2017, 03:46 PM	#309
Donn Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In my head. Posts: 7,758	Originally Posted by Trebuchet I've never heard an American say it either. At least without cringing. It literally bugs me more than "literally". But not as much as abuse of compound pronouns. One literally could care less!
	__________________ "If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett "If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans "I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat

26th September 2017, 06:40 AM	#310
Rincewind Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat! Posts: 7,647	Originally Posted by Donn One literally could care less! Or even couldn't care less!
	__________________ I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...

26th September 2017, 07:49 AM	#311
HighRiser Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: High above Indianapolis Posts: 1,831	Originally Posted by John Jones Let's get on with the telepathy. Originally Posted by Wolrab That's what I was thinking! You two should get out of each others minds!
	__________________ Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah

26th September 2017, 11:03 AM	#312
Startz Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 493	Originally Posted by King of the Americas We'll just need a secret third party, to confirm the accuracy of the guesses...? How should that function, to make sure I couldn't have 'cheated'...? So King of the Americas has returned and seems to be offering to do a test. Anyone going to take him up on it?

26th September 2017, 08:43 PM	#313
Jocko Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,467	Originally Posted by Startz So King of the Americas has returned and seems to be offering to do a test. Anyone going to take him up on it? Why not? I haven't been blamed for someone else's catastrophic failure since the election.
Jocko Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,467

27th September 2017, 05:24 AM	#314
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 8,880	Originally Posted by Startz So King of the Americas has returned and seems to be offering to do a test. Anyone going to take him up on it? I'm still waiting for a real telepath to turn up. One who'll phone the number I'm thinking of, say the right word and win a grand.

27th September 2017, 05:29 AM	#315
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 26,380	Originally Posted by King of the Americas We'll just need a secret third party, to confirm the accuracy of the guesses...? How should that function, to make sure I couldn't have 'cheated'...? That's covered in the "I then post the sequence here as a hash" bit, isn't it? LL posts an encrypted version of the sequence, you post your sequence in clear, then LL posts the decryption key so anyone can compare the two. Sounds good enough to me, as it eliminates cheating while not requiring a third party. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right