|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 66 OF 172 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-29-10 | | Jim Bartle: Boo Boo? Didn't he play first base for Pittsburgh in the early 60s? |
 |
| Oct-29-10 | | Jim Bartle: Who said this?
"I played for Washington five different times. That beat Franklin Delano Roosevelt's record. He was only elected four times." |
|
Oct-29-10
 | | Phony Benoni: I know that one, and it wasn't Ozzie. |
|
| Oct-29-10 | | Jim Bartle: Nor Harriet. |
|
Oct-29-10
 | | tamar: Not Gilbert Arenas by any chance? |
|
Oct-29-10
 | | HeMateMe: I guess that would either be the Washington Senators, or the old Washington bulletts of the NBA. I'm going to guess its a journeyman pitcher for the Senators, someone who was called up 5 times, but spent a lot of time playing AAA ball. |
|
| Oct-29-10 | | Jim Bartle: Definitely the Washington Senators, the team now playing as the Minnesota Twins. Didn't mean for that to be part of the riddle. Extra hint: His name is related to earlier posts on this page. |
|
Nov-03-10
| | Phony Benoni: A little chess related puzzle, that has nothing to do with Bobo Newsom. If I wanted to make it really impossible, I would just give you this sequence of characters, say it had something to do with chess, and leave you hanging: 5 U WF L 4 S7 U SF TF U V3 7N TB 4E RC K 3W R 2R R 6R 2D US 14 1D 1D XT 4M 6D 7D 42 72 84 mate Not being quite that mean, I will tell you it's the score of the game Morphy vs Duke Karl / Count Isouard, 1858. Now you only have to figure out the key. |
|
Nov-03-10
| | Phony Benoni: <alexmagnus> You've got the basic idea, but the switching of the pieces' starting point does have a definite pattern. |
|
Nov-03-10
 | | alexmagnus: Got it now :) |
|
Nov-04-10
 | | WannaBe: Okay, this one is 'Who Are Us' question...
1. Combined, we have 6 World Series rings.
2. We were on the same team in Montreal.
3. We both were members of the Dodgers.
4. One of us was a member of the Toronto Maple Leafs (?!). 5. One of us held the record for most strike outs in a professional baseball game (Record since broken). 6. We are both in the Baseball Hall of Fame, inducted 3 years apart. Who, Are, Us?! =) |
|
Nov-04-10
 | | OhioChessFan: http://members.iinet.net.au/~pontip... |
|
Nov-05-10
| | HeMateMe: Fernando Venezula? |
|
Nov-05-10
 | | kellmano: <Phonybenoni>
I'd like to know the answer. |
|
| Nov-05-10 | | Jim Bartle: A lot of tricks in that stumper. Still working on it. I thought I had it with Campanella and Koufax, but Koufax never played in the minor leagues, certainly not with Campanella. |
|
Nov-05-10
| | Phony Benoni: <WannaBe> I was thinking Sparky Anderson and Tommy LaSorda, but I can't figure out the strikeout clue. <kellmano>: http://books.google.com/books?id=Lj... |
|
| Nov-05-10 | | Jim Bartle: I'm going with Tommy LaSorda and Leo Durocher. How the strikeout record fits I don't know, and I'm just sort of assuming Durocher managed or coached at Montreal when LaSorda was "pitching" there. |
|
Nov-05-10
| | WannaBe: <Phony Benoni> You got it!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparky... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_... Tommy set the record while in the minors, hence the clue was 'professional baseball' not Major League. The 'mis-leading' clue, was that Tommy won a WS ring as a player, 2 as manager, while Sparky won all 3 as manager. For a total of 6 WS rings. =) |
|
| Nov-05-10 | | Jim Bartle: Anderson played for the Santa Barbara Dodgers! Too tricky for me. |
|
Nov-06-10
| | kellmano: What would happen to a]the population of a nation if every couple was allowed to have children until they had a boy, and everyone obeyed this rule? |
|
| Nov-06-10 | | Jim Bartle: kellmano: Does that assume all couples would try to keep having children until they had a boy? If not, I don't think you could make any calculation. |
|
| Nov-06-10 | | BobCrisp: There'd be no difference to the population in terms of male-female ratio except for a relative fall in the level of fratricides. |
|
Nov-07-10
| | HeMateMe: The population increases faster than under normal parameters. A couple might have two girls (probability = 1/2 X 1/2 = .25), or even 3 girls in a row, 12.5%, approaching zero. At some point they have a boy, and then stop having kids. The much smaller India is expected to equal China's population, by the end of this century. |
|
| Nov-07-10 | | BobCrisp: <The population increases faster than under normal parameters.> So a reproduction restriction policy increases the rate of reproduction? That makes a lot of sense. |
|
| Nov-07-10 | | Jim Bartle: I'll take a stab, similarly to HeMateMe's:
I'm assuming everybody gets married and has at least one child, an assumption which leads to more children being born rather than fewer. I also assume we start with an equal number of men and women. Couples having specific number of children by stopping after having a boy. (I'll stop after six consecutive girls, assuming seventh is a boy. The numbers are quite small beyond that.) 1 child: 50%
2 children: 25%
3 children: 12.5%
4 children: 6.25%
5 children: 3.12%
6 children: 1.56%
7 children: 0.78%
By my calculation, the population would decrease by 3.35% after one generation. That decrease would become much greater after the first generation, because the percentage of males in the population would be much less than 50%, becoming lower each succeding generation, and I’m assuming (ha!) for this stumper that each male will have children with only one female. But I’m not ready to calculate second, third, fourth generations. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 66 OF 172 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
