zapatos

Yes, we can know for certain C is wearing a black hat assuming prisoners A and B are not fools. If C is wearing a red hat, the only way A can say "I don't know" is if B has a black hat. And if A said "I don't know" while observing a red hat on C, then B will know for certain he has on a black hat and therefore won't say "I don't know". The only scenario where both A and B 'don't know' involves C wearing a black hat (for example if all three wore black hats). I think my original logic falls down by not originally accounting for the additional information gathered once the game started.

Perhaps dyslexia. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3480257/What-s-REALLY-like-read-dyslexia-Simulator-reveals-letters-words-appear-people-condition.html

Mix the contents of the cans.

Perhaps you are thinking of OPERA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

Peter BE Cimp, a good Christain, said that. I just thought it was so telling that I quoted him. If you have a problem with it please take it up with him. Again, not a quote from me. It's a quote from a Monty Python movie. You know who to talk to if you don't like it. Perhaps they'd be willing to change their movie so you are not offended. Here's another movie quote for you:

Nursing some hurt feelings?

Of course, that isn't what I said, is it? What is amusing is your inability to actually read what I write (you are now two for two). Here, I'll copy it below as you seem to having trouble reading my posts the first time around. "The only thing the blind guys knows for certain is that both he and one other person are not wearing red hats" Perhaps you'd benefit from Googling 'conjunctions'. Did you come to this site because you ran out of local people to be rude to?

Agreed. The only thing the blind guys knows for certain is that both he and one other person are not wearing red hats, otherwise one of the first two would have known that they wore a black hat. Therefore it is possible that both of the first two prisoners are wearing black (in which case a black hat would remain) or that one is wearing black and one is wearing red (in which case a red hat would remain). Hence, the blind guy doesn't know with certainty the color of his hat.

How interesting that you didn't read the post immediately following Airbrush's comparison of Trump to Hitler, where I criticized Airbrush for making such a ridiculous comparison. Your post is as ridiculous as that of Airbrush. People who live in glass houses...

I guess you missed the title of this thread. I'll list it below so you'll know. "The Impeachment of Trump?"

You are just a ray of sunshine.

Tell me what you'd like to see there and I'll edit my post.

Right, I'm the one who said knowledge implies understanding in my first post. Yes, I acknowledged that and said that your idea of overlap was probably a better description than my description that knowledge implies understanding. Guess I didn't make myself clear.

Eh, I'm still not sure that is right. I may be overstating it when I say knowledge implies understanding, more in line with studiot's venn diagram idea, but you don't get knowledge just by reading something. Even if I can reproduce a Calculus book from memory, if I can't use calculus to solve a problem then I don't have knowledge, I only have 'data' or 'information' about calculus. It's not until I understand how calculus is applied that I would consider myself knowledgable. I may be splitting hairs here so won't belabor the point anymore. I just felt you were understating what is considered knowledge. I think you missed the mark with this example. Driving a car and knowing how an internal combustion engine work are two different things. Driving a car requires that I understand which pedal to press, how to start the car, what the lines on the road mean, etc. Not how combustion is converted to forward motion.

Isn't 'understanding' implied in the definition of knowledge? I don't think you can be considered to be knowledgeable about something if you don't understand it.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/136319-6-subtle-forms-of-mansplaining-that-women-encounter-each-day

Although it wasn't much better when the OP was being advised on whether or not she should even be wearing makeup in the first place. Good thing she came here before completely screwing up her life by making the wrong decision!

I did read it. Perhaps you would be so kind as to restate your point.

Seriously? We need to stay away from "chemicals"?

So improve yourself! You don't have to remain lazy. Do a little research next time you open a thread and present it here.

Have you got an internet connection and the ability to use Google?

On August 21st of this year a total solar eclipse will cross the United States. Luckily for me my home will be in the path of totality. The path of totality is about 73 miles wide. I am about 20 miles from the center line, and am trying to decide whether or not to move closer to the center line. An advantage of being on the center line includes the fact that at the center totality will last about 160 seconds, while at my home totality will only last about 115 seconds. Disadvantages of traveling to the center line include the traffic, crowds, and an unknown environment. Of course, the crowds could potentially enhance the experience. One thing in particular I'm wondering about is if totality looks different on the center line than it looks 20 miles from the center line. Specifically I'm wondering if being closer to the 'edge' where the sun is not completely blocked will degrade my experience. Will it be noticeably brighter at my home than at the center line? I'd love to hear any experiences anyone has had with total solar eclipses, tips on how to best experience it, or anything else of interest. I'm a total eclipse virgin and I want this to be a day to remember.

Thanks for the ideas. I'll look into it and see what I can find out.

I found this a while back. Looks like a shark tooth, but if I look hard enough I can probably see a dunce cap or a pink bunny. I really know nothing about fossils and only kept this because it looked interesting. Any idea if this is a fossil or just an interesting looking rock?

In your model, why isn't the 'infinite amount of stuff beyond where we can see' in front of us, offset by the 'infinite amount of stuff' behind us, resulting in a static universe?