The Mail on Sunday is reporting that “some of Britain’s most popular TV game shows could be forced off the air after regulators launched a probe into whether they constitute gambling”. The paper claims that game shows Deal Or No Deal, Red Or Black? and a proposal to revive Play Your Cards Right “could be breaking the law because they do not involve any element of skill” and “it is against the law to run non-skill games for money without a gambling licence”. If found in breach, the article suggests possible solutions:
Last night, one legal expert said that in order to comply with a licence, Deal Or No Deal could be forced to move to a time slot after the 9pm watershed, it could also face tight restrictions on the type of advertising allowed to be sold in the commercial breaks and the amount of pre-broadcast publicity it could receive.
Channel 4 may then decide it would be simpler to cancel the show, than be constrained by so many restrictions.
One distinction, pointed out in the comments, is that contestants don’t risk leaving the game show with less money than when they began. The article quotes “a Government source” saying that, at least for Deal Or No Deal, the issue is:
Even though at the beginning of the show, contestants do not have to stake any of their own money, the argument is that once they’ve picked a box, which could contain a lot of cash, in subsequent rounds they are in effect gambling with their own money
The full articles goes into the detail of the games involved and provides some comments from “game show bosses”, arguing that “rules created to control casinos and illegal betting should not be applied to entertainment programmes”.
Source: Hit game shows like Deal or No Deal and Play Your Cards Right could be forced off air after gambling watchdog claims that they break the law.
Leaves don’t just grow equally in all directions, or they would have a regular shape. To understand how a few cells give rise to such complex structures as leaves is described in the abstract of a new paper in Science as “a major challenge in biology”.
The paper presents a new model that shows how leaf shape can arise through feedback between early patterns of oriented growth and tissue deformation, and some experimental evidence to support this model. Researchers filmed individual cells and tracked them as the plant grew. One of the researchers, Professor Enrico Coen, is quoted saying:
The model is not just based on drawings of leaf shape at different stages. To accurately recreate dynamic growth from bud to leaf, we had to establish the mathematical rules governing how leaf shapes are formed.
Professor Douglas Kell, Chief Executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), who funded the research, is quoted saying:
This exciting research highlights the potential of using computer and mathematical models for biological research to help us tackle complex questions and make predictions for the future.
Source: First model of how buds grow into leaves.
Nominations are open for the Royal Statistical Society’s awards for statistical excellence in journalism. Eligible work must have been published or broadcast between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011.
Awards are to be made in three categories:
- print publication
- online publication
- broadcast media
When nominating, you are asked to indicate in which area or areas you feel an entry has made a contribution from the following:
- raised awareness and understanding of what statistics are and what they can be used for, and what statistical methods can achieve
- enabled greater public understanding through an accessible analysis of the statistics put forward to support or challenge the claims of policy makers
- sourced and used statistics to investigate a societal issue and have an impact on public opinion
- used statistics well to challenge and/or change the decisions and policies of public or private bodies
Final judging takes place in June 2012 with announcements of winners made in early June 2012. Winners will be invited to be formally presented with their awards at the Royal Statistical Society’s Awards Reception on Tuesday, 4 September 2012.
Judging criteria and an entry form are available via the RSS website.
The Archivist at King’s College, Cambridge has put their collection of material by and about Alan Turing online at www.turingarchive.org.
This clipping of a newspaper report about Turing’s death, with annotations from his mother, is enormously sad.
• Puzzle 1. Suppose I have a box of jewels. The average value of a jewel in the box is \$10. I randomly pull one out of the box. What’s the probability that its value is at least \$100?
• Puzzle 2. Suppose I have a box full of numbers—they can be arbitrary real numbers. Their average is zero, and their standard deviation is 10. I randomly pull one out. What’s the probability that it’s at least 100?
John Baez and Brendan Fong claim to have answered questions like these, but in a general way that is useful for quantum mechanics:
They’ve written a paper and a blog post.
Paul J. Ferraro and Laura O. Taylor ask, “Do Economists Recognize an Opportunity Cost When They See One? A Dismal Performance from the Dismal Science”
One expects people with graduate training in economics to have a deeper understanding of economic processes and reasoning than people without such training. However, as others have noted over the past 25 years, modern graduate education may emphasize mathematics and technique to the detriment of economic reasoning. One of the most important contributions economics has to offer as a discipline is the understanding of opportunity cost and how to apply this concept to all forms of decision making. We examine how PhD economists answer an introductory economics textbook question that requires identifying the relevant opportunity cost of an action. The results are not consistent with our expectation that graduate training leads to a deeper understanding of the concept. We explore the implications of our results for the relevance of economists in policy, research, and teaching.
Importantly, given four options, only 21.6% of respondents chose the correct one. They performed worse than chance. Some feeble statistical analysis is performed by the authors.
This challenges none of my views about economists: none of them can do maths; none of them can do statistics; what they do has very little rational basis; they are terrible at designing questions for undergrads that don’t require you to make assumptions, often drawing heavily on cultural knowledge.
Found via MetaFilter, which compares the problem to the Monty Hall problem in probability. Nowhere near, in my opinion.