Dr. Pomade

It probably needs lowered.

I would always switch doors. This is my reasoning. If you don't switch doors, then you have a 50% chance of getting the car. (Actually, it's only 1/3, but when the other goat is revealed then I know I at least have a 50-50 shot that my door hides the car.) However, if you switch doors, then you have a 67% percent chance of getting the car. If you switch doors, there are only three outcomes possible, and 2 of the 3 result in you getting the car. 1: you picked a goat. Goat revealed. You switch and get the car. 2: you picked the other goat. Goat revealed. You switch and get the car. 3: you (were unlucky enough to have) picked the car. Goat revealed. You switch and get the goat. At the get-go, what are you more likely to pick - a goat or a car? Well, your odds are 2/3 for a goat and only 1/3 for a car. By switching your pick after a goat is revealed, you get to flip those odds in your favor: 2/3 of the time you'll get the car and only 1/3 will you switch and get a goat. This is what I tried to explain to my friend, who, by all accounts, is a highly intelligent, very accomplished individual. (He has a doctorate in psychology and a law degree as well.) However, he was having none of it, and argued vehemently that there was no statistical advantage to switching.

PS - the host knows which doors have the goats. So him opening a door is not random. It is deliberate.

A friend and I got into a debate this Saturday over this problem. I'll give you the specifics and let you weigh in. Assume all these things to be true: - there are 3 doors - behind two doors there are goats. Behind one door is a car. - your goal is to win the car - the goats and cars are randomly assigned to the doors - the host asks you to pick door 1, 2, or 3 (and you have to pick one) - the host then opens one of the doors to reveal a goat - the hosts asks if you'd like to keep the door you picked or switch to the other door. Your decision will be final. So, do you switch doors? Is there any advantage to switching? Feel free to offer your rationale.

Revised List of Things Faster than Imstock's Twin Turbo C6 - evolution by natural selection - global warming - movement of tectonic plates - a U.S. postal service vehicle delivering a disability check - a glacier - molecules at zero degrees on the Kelvin Scale - a fossilized sloth

Not only was he confused by the word "paradox," he also had to look up the words "cat" and "butter."

I just typed "faster than imstock" into Google and this was the first result: http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/glacier-640x427.jpg

So you're saying it would tie imstock's C6 twin turbo in a 1/4 mile race?

<3

Shut up before I buy you and sell you to whoever Sammy is for $14.67.

Hey, let's all think of things that are faster than a C6 twin turbo that doesn't exist. Here are some things that come to mind: - evolution by natural selection - global warming - movement of tectonic plates - a U.S. postal service vehicle delivering a disability check

I've got one wife, a mistress, and a girlfriend.

It's also faster than a C6 twin turbo that doesn't exist.

Weight reduction pro tip: next time you race, do a tuck and roll as you pass the 1/8 mark; the weight lost from you bailing will shave at least a .10 off your E/T. You're welcome.

I am fairly white so that was probably an accurate visualization.

Last time I checked, a V6 auto car is faster than a C6 twin turbo car that doesn't exist.

Imstock pulls up to the scene with his ceiling missing.

My synopsis of video: Addy's awesome.

I will but only if it's okay to post three times in a row.

Who's arguing?

Well duh.

I haven't watched the video. With that caveat disclosed, I think, by "tolerance," you mean impairment. Tolerance, from a clinical perspective, refers to when you need more of a drug to obtain the desired effect (i.e., intoxication). Tolerance would not have relevance to this video, I wouldn't think (as I think the video basically shows that your driving abilities are impaired when you're intoxicted on alcohol). Anectodally, I've heard many people say they aren't impaired by using cannabis and drive just fine. The research that I know of strongly disputes that and indicates quite unequivocally that cannabis intoxication results in a number of acute deficiencies that would have significance to, say, operating a motor vehicle. In other words, stoners who try to say they drive just fine when they are high are idiots.

Richard Simmons could drive that car deep into the 9's.

I enjoyed how this thread included a little bit of whining, a feel good post, and then Ken absolutely obliterating everyone with a death ray of intelligence.