Granted, but any time you put them in a console/computer, it fries (I assumed you meant video games given the website we are posting on)

I wish I was Britney Spears.

Wait, that one doesn't need to be corrupted :)

My real wish is for pyrokinesis.

I prefer:

"Did your grandma last night, 5 out of 10"
"Dude, my grandmas dead"
"9 out of 10".

At least that's how it goes in my head. I haven't found the right victim yet :)

I use your mum jokes, but never to actually offend, and I'm sure most people don't either. It's funny because you both know it is inappropriate in an over-the-top silly way. Have you ever seen anyone actually get angry when they are used?

I feel similarly; in fact, this nonsense prompted me to write my first blog. I own an Xbox 360 and a Wii. If I didn't have an Xbox 360, the choice between the Xbox 360 and PS3 would be close; each has exclusives I want to play, and a number of advantanges over the other. The only reason I don't have a PS3 yet is because it is not going to offer me enough incremental value over my Xbox 360. I'm betting on LittleBigPlanet to be the game that makes me buy a PS3, although I may buy one earlier for the blu-ray capability.

Despite me not seeing a need to own one yet, I think the PS3 will come out ahead this generation. That's just a non-emotional opinion though; it won't affect my enjoyment in playing games for any of the 3 systems.

I like boss fights, so long as they are done well. I don't mind environmental triggers or weak spots, so long as they are obvious without being hackneyed. For example, I recently finished Jericho, and during a couple of the boss fights I had to pause it and check a FAQ just to make sure there wasn't something else I was supposed to be doing. In one of the boss fights, there are two different enemies, but one of them is invincible and won't die until the other one does, despite being an enemy you have killed previously in the game. I wasted five minutes thinking 'I'll kill the mini-boss first, then focus on the main boss'.

Probably the best boss battles are those where they change their behaviour regularly and you have rely on different weapons and move to new vantage points. Funnily enough I can't really think of any at the moment.

Four guys are in a prison cell; a zoophile, a sadist, a necrophiliac and an extreme sports guy.

The zoophile says "If I had a cat, I would have sex with it."
The sadist says "After that I'd torture it until it was dead."
The necrophiliac says "After that, I'd have sex with it."

The extreme sports guy says "Meow"

-------------

If I said I was into bondage, bestiality and necrophilia, would I be flogging a dead horse?

Why did cave men drag women around by their hair?
If they dragged them around by their feet, they'd fill up with dirt.

I'm not racist, but I love racial/stereotype jokes. Hopefully the following modification is passable.

Why doesn't a [insert race of choice here] bride wear underwear?
To keep the flies off the cake.

Well this isn't comedy really. It's just interesting that it is such a low number. It makes mathematical sense, but when he asked the audience what they thought the answer was, a lot of people said 182 (at which point there is about a 50% chance that the next person will say a date already mentioned) and others just called out random numbers. I think the lowest guess was 100.

The answer is 23.

When the second person calls out their birthdate, there is already 1 known birthdate, so there are 364 left, and therefore a .274% chance that it will be the same date.

When the third person calls out their birthdate, there are 2 known birthdates, leaving 363, and therefore a 0.5479% chance that it will share a date with one of them. HOWEVER, you need to multiply by the chance that there hasn't already been a match. The best way I can explain this is multiply the chance there has not been a cumulative match, with the current chance there will not be a match (The chance of there not being a match is 100% minus the chance of there being a match) So in this case it would be 99.726% (100 - 0.274) * 99.4521% (100 - 0.5479) which makes the cumulative total of there not being a match 99.1795%; therefore there is 0.8205% there will be a match.

You carry this cumulative total forward until you get to number 23, at which point there is a 50.792% chance that a match will have occurred by that time.

Before he explained the math behind it (which I don't think I have explained adequately, sorry), he went through the audience about half a dozen times and did just as I had suggested in the problem. He never got to 30.

For the second question, what's the chance that 300 random people will have no matching birthdates? I really shouldn't have chosen 300. I can't even get it to display in Excel. It's 6.2453E-80, which if my limited memory of maths serves, that means there is a 0.[insert 79 zeros]62453% chance that this will happen.

Makaveli, I tried putting that equation into Excel, and it turned up a #NUM! response. I know solving this problem can be expressed as a formula, but I took the long hand approach as I don't remember how to express it :)