Rotwang

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbfe9N_1oWM

I second this question.

My picks are as follows: 1995: Koxbox - Forever After 1996: MFG - The Prophecy 1997: Koxbox - Dragon Tales 1998: Sandman - Witchcraft 1999: Infected Mushroom - The Gathering 2000: Infected Mushroom - Classical Mushroom 2001: Infected Mushroom - B.P. Empire 2002: Various Artists - Vibraspirit 23 2003: Dark Nebula - The 8th Sphere 2004: Kindzadza - Waves from Outer Space 2005: Various Artists - Karmageddon 2006: The Nommos - Primal Meltdown 2007: Kindzadza - Waves from Inner Space 2008: Overdream - Wonderwise 2009: Kraft - The Mysteries of the Sacred Universe 2010: Axis Mundi - One Foot in Fantasy 2011: Dragon - Spirals of Time 2012: Kindzadza - Nano Ninja

OK, I think I've figured out what's going on here. The links to individual threads in the mobile skin all have the form http://www.psynews.org/forums/index.php?/topic/10000-topic-name/page__view__getnewpost but when one actually opens the page, one is referred to a page of the form http://www.psynews.org/forums/index.php?/topic/10000-topic-name/page__st__100#entry1000000 where the number on the end is the first unread post if there is one, or the last post of the thread otherwise. Obviously, this doesn't make it any easier to post a link to an individual post on a mobile device unless that post happens to be the first unread/last post of the thread.

Yes, posting a link to an individual post would have been more awkward on an iPod than on a desk/laptop - not least because I have no idea how to get the link to an individual post on an iPod. This has nothing to do with the subdivisions that are visible in the address bar of a browser. Please tell me how you got the URL (which links to an individual post) that you posted from your iPhone.

When you say "doesn't show psynews.org subdivisions", are you referring to the fact that the URL that appears in the address bar always says "psynews.org", rather than e.g. "psynews.org/forums/index.php?/topic/53032-site-questions-requests/"? If so, that's only true if you browse the forum in a single tab. If you open any link in a new tab, the address bar will display the full URL. I didn't "point" any such thing. Does it look like this? If so, that's the mobile skin. I'm talking about the URL that was pasted into your earlier post. It looks like this: http://www.psynews.org/forums/index.php?/topic/53032-site-questions-requests/page__st__600#entry1001845 No, because that screen does not display any posts. Like I said, the post number appears at the top right corner of each post. If you're using the IP.Board theme on your Macbook, it should look like this. No. The URL you posted was for the individual post number 613 of this thread, i.e. this one. That's why the URL ends with '#entry1001845' (1001845 being the post's ID). If you click on the link you posted you should find that it doesn't just take you to page 31 - it takes you half way down page 31, so that neurogen's post appears at the top of the screen.

Yes, in fact you posted one such link a few minutes ago. That's what the '#entry1001845' on the end of your URL means. There is in the desktop skins, namely the post number at the top right corner of each post (#620 for this one, for example). I'm not aware of such a button in the mobile skin. How did you get to the page you linked to? e: Actually you don't - if you hold down a link rather than tapping it, a menu will pop up that has an option to copy the link without opening the page. But you just did it! Can you remember what you did?

I know all that. But how do you get the link for an individual post from the mobile skin?

Personally I can browse on both my PC and iPod without any trouble - the iPod uses the mobile theme (in fact it seems to be impossible to use anything else on the iPod since the last upgrade) but any desktop or laptop where I log on gives me the Deviant theme. Using the mobile skin on your Android shouldn't affect what happens elsewhere. Let us know if it does (though frankly there probably wouldn't be much we could do about it; we're at the mercy of the idiots who maintain IPB).

neurogen: go to the last page of the thread called 'new skin available (beta)' or something similar in the Psynews.org subforum. There's a post there where I explain how to fix your problem. I'd post a link but it's a bit awkward at the mo since I'm posting from an iProduct.

I agree that the original is much better, but we'd never know until we tried it, would we?

It means "not safe for work".

Anyone posting a review should have heard the whole album, not just samples. Anyway, samples may be found here.

No, wrong. OK so far... No. If C, and only C, is the right answer then the probability that you get the right answer is equal to the probability that you choose C. If you pick one of A, B, C or D with equal probability - which is what the question meant - then the probability that you choose C is 25%, not 0%. In the argument of mine you're trying to imitate (in which I assumed that the correct answer to your original problem was 33.3% and derived a contradiction), the probability of getting the right answer was 0% because none of the four possible answers that you could choose at random was equal to the correct answer. That is no longer the case in your version of the argument. And this is nonsense too. The (non-)fact that you can't derive a contradiction from an assumption does not imply that the assumption must be true (as I already pointed out, with the second unanswerable modification I proposed). The reason I concluded that 0% was the answer to your original problem is because every possible answer except 0% leads to a contradiction.

A quick Google reveals there are a load of variants floating around the tubes. The only link I found where I can vouch for the fact that a good proportion of posters know what they're talking about was this one. The top-rated answer points out that the version given by the OP is paradoxical but that a variation similar to that given by exotic is not.

I don't know about the original, but the version exotic posted was

No, it isn't. The above two sentences (a variation of the liar paradox) are paradoxical because each sentence can neither be true nor fail to be true without leading to a contradiction - that is, if you suppose that the first sentence is true then that implies that it is not true, and conversely. exotic's problem isn't like that; there's a unique answer that doesn't lead to any contradiction, and that answer is 0%. It's easy enough to modify the problem so it becomes unanswerable, though; for example we could ask "If you were to choose one of the below answers to this question at random, what would be the chance that you got it right? A) 25% B ) 50% C) 0% D) 25%". Then there's no answer that fails to contradict itself. We could also ask something like "If you were to choose one of the below answers to this question at random, what would be the chance that you got it right? A) 25% B ) 50% C) 75% D) 50%", in which case there are three different answers that are consistent (25%, 50% or 0%) and no way to choose between them.

That's not how my argument works. Rather, I show that each of the given answers, if correct, would lead to a contradiction and conclude that none of them is correct. Then I calculate that the correct answer is 0%. Why would the author of the problem have used the words "this question" to refer to a different question without giving the different question? That's not how the word "this" is usually used. For that matter, if that was the author's intention then why would he or she have chosen a phantom question whose answers were probabilities, rather than colours or types of animal or something?

But there isn't. The question does tell us what the question is, with the word "this". The question refers to itself. There's nothing about my answer that contradicts classic probability. And the trickiness of the question is the whole point of the question. This is how you contradict yourself: you say that the answer is 33.3%. Let's suppose that that is correct. Now let's suppose that you pick one of A, B, C and D at random, with any probabilities you like. If you choose A you get the answer wrong, since A says 25% but we're assuming that the answer is 33.3%. Similarly, if you choose B, C or D you get the the answer wrong, for the same reason. None of the four possible outcomes of choosing A, B, C or D at random will lead to you getting the right answer, namely 33.3%. Therefore the probability that you get the right answer is 0%. Hence the answer to the question "If you were to choose one of the below answers to this question at random, what would be the chance that you got it right? A) 25% B ) 50% C) 75% D) 25%" is 0%. But that contradicts our assumption that the answer was 33.3%. So that assumption must have been incorrect.

Upon reflection, I think you've gone about it as if the question were slightly different. Consider this question: Note that there are two questions at issue here. Question 1 is "Which colour did I pick?". Question 2 has the form "What is the probability that you will correctly guess the answer to Question 1 if you go about choosing your answer a certain way?". The answer to the second question has no effect on the answer to the first, so we can go about answering both questions by first figuring out what the possible answers and respective probabilities are for the first question, and then applying that knowledge to answer the second question. But the problem you posed was Note that here there is only one question, which refers to itself. There is only Question 1, where Question 1 has the form "What is the probability that you will correctly guess the answer to Question 1 if you go about choosing your answer a certain way?". You're trying to apply the approach we can use on the first two questions, which worked there, to the last question. edit: I notice that you posted a reply while I was writing this one, and your reply illustrates that you were making the mistake that I thought you were. The problem about pets you posed is exactly analogous to the "red, green, blue" example - it involves two different questions. But the original question only refers to itself. Your method of approaching it is to assume that there's a second question that asks you to calculate the probability of correctly guessing the answer to the first. But since they are really the same question, the two answers you have given (25% or 50% or 75%, each with probability 1/3 for the first question, 33.33% for the second question) contradict one another.

Each one is "equally possible" in the sense that each one is wrong. No, this doesn't follow. There is some ambiguity in the question, in the sense that there are infinitely many ways to choose one of the four given answers at random (one can assign probabilities to each of A, B, C and D any way one likes, provided that they sum to 1), but the natural interpretation is that the question means for you to pick one of A, B, C or D with equal probability for each - that's what people usually mean when they talk about picking one of a finite number of choices "at random" without any further qualification. I don't know what you mean by this. It's either is wrong or it isn't, probability doesn't come into it. In saying that the probability of 25% being right is 1/3, you are assuming that each of the three answers is equally likely to be correct, and that exactly one of them is correct (as opposed to, e.g. none of them). That isn't the case. But that doesn't make any sense. If the answer were 1/3 then there would be a 1/3 probability of picking 1/3 by choosing one of A, B, C or D at random. But none of A, B, C or D is 1/3.

This is your lucky day. Here's one of the tracks slowed down to 145 BPM, using Rotwang's TOP-SECRET ADVANCED PROPRIETARY TIMESTRETCH ALGORITHM©: http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=titwD1jntAk (I can try doing the same to other tracks if anyone would like me to.)

Not sure how that could help.

'Geniume' is not a word of the English language.

The black keys have nothing to do with it. A tune in A minor need not use the black keys but can still sound sad, for example.