$10 Quiz

[Potomophobia 17]

During WWII....that's World War 2 for all you youngsters..... the Air Force hired statisticians to study the bullet hole patterns of bombers returning from flights over Germany to determine where best to shield planes in future bombing raids.Their recommendation was to place extra shielding over the areas that were unscathed.What was their reasoning?$10 transfer on Poker Stars to the first correct answer.

[Knollie919 0]

those spots were gonna get hit next so they planned ahead lol

[Loismustdie 0]

During WWII....that's World War 2 for all you youngsters..... the Air Force hired statisticians to study the bullet hole patterns of bombers returning from flights over Germany to determine where best to shield planes in future bombing raids.Their recommendation was to place extra shielding over the areas that were unscathed.What was their reasoning?$10 transfer on Poker Stars to the first correct answer.

Because those planes were able to fly back,hence able to take bullets in those spots, and presumably not others. Ship it.

[Flushgarden 0]

Because the planes that were shot made it back...so the plane can handle being shot in the spots they were shot in. But the planes that were shot down were likely shot in other spots...the spots that were unscathed on the the planes that made it back.

[bull62 0]

The planes could obviously survive hits to the areas that were already hit, so extra shielding to the areas they were unsure about.

[vbnautilus 49]

The ones with bullet holes did not blow up! The ones not coming back must have had bullet holes in the unscathed areas...

[Governator 54]

Nevermind, I suck

[Loismustdie 0]

Nevermind, I suck

O.k., that made me laugh out loud.

[chrozzo 19]

i dunno...but im awesome so ill take $10 anywaysweeeeeeeeee

[Veener Schnitz 0]

During World War II, statistician Abraham Wald tried to determine where to add extra armor to airplanes. Based on the patterns of bullet holes in returning airplanes, he suggested that the parts not hit should be protected with extra armor. Why?Wald was looking at what is sometimes called "dead evidence." He reasoned like this... if these planes are returning, we know that if they are hit in the spots they have been hit, they can still fly. The planes that did not return must have been hit in different places. So put the extra armor wherever the returning planes were not hit.I think most people would have a natural inclination to put the armor where the returning planes had been hit. The real answer is simple, but counterintuitive. It's called "dead evidence" because it is what people ignore when they make these judgments. For instance, you may see a story on tv about how to survive a plane crash. The producers will interview 10 plane crash survivors, and figure out what they did in common, then recommend that you do that too. What they don't think about is how many people did those same things, but still died in the crash. The dead can't be interviewed, so we will never know.VeenerSchnit (Buffalo)

[Chris E 0]

I think I'm too late, although planes were more likely to take shots in the wings and gunner's station the planes could likely return home nevertheless, the plane could not return if it took shots to the cockpit or fueltanks.

[acesup85 0]

The places that were hit by bullet holes were clearly not vital to the plane if it made it back alright.

[Potomophobia 17]

Man..... I have to come up with tougher questions.Loismustdie is correct. Since the planes coming back with bullet holes were still able to fly, other ares of the plane must have been more critical to the functioning of the aircraft. Let me know your Poker Stars name and I will ship it.Well done.

[code1390 0]

Man..... I have to come up with tougher questions.Loismustdie is correct. Since the planes coming back with bullet holes were still able to fly, other ares of the plane must have been more critical to the functioning of the aircraft. Let me know your Poker Stars name and I will ship it.Well done.

10 way chop?

[Knollie919 0]

my answer is the same just not worded well lol

[Knollie919 0]

ok so its not even close but it was worth a shot

[Loismustdie 0]

Man..... I have to come up with tougher questions.Loismustdie is correct. Since the planes coming back with bullet holes were still able to fly, other ares of the plane must have been more critical to the functioning of the aircraft. Let me know your Poker Stars name and I will ship it.Well done.

Pancakelover. City,Glendale. Pancakelover because I am a fatass, and could think of nothing else the day I signed up on Stars. And, thank you. It's my first tourney win in a year.

[runthemover 40]

During WWII....that's World War 2 for all you youngsters..... the Air Force hired statisticians to study the bullet hole patterns of bombers returning from flights over Germany to determine where best to shield planes in future bombing raids.Their recommendation was to place extra shielding over the areas that were unscathed.What was their reasoning?$10 transfer on Poker Stars to the first correct answer.

they were commies plotting against America

[Loismustdie 0]

During World War II, statistician Abraham Wald tried to determine where to add extra armor to airplanes. Based on the patterns of bullet holes in returning airplanes, he suggested that the parts not hit should be protected with extra armor. Why?Wald was looking at what is sometimes called "dead evidence." He reasoned like this... if these planes are returning, we know that if they are hit in the spots they have been hit, they can still fly. The planes that did not return must have been hit in different places. So put the extra armor wherever the returning planes were not hit.I think most people would have a natural inclination to put the armor where the returning planes had been hit. The real answer is simple, but counterintuitive. It's called "dead evidence" because it is what people ignore when they make these judgments. For instance, you may see a story on tv about how to survive a plane crash. The producers will interview 10 plane crash survivors, and figure out what they did in common, then recommend that you do that too. What they don't think about is how many people did those same things, but still died in the crash. The dead can't be interviewed, so we will never know.VeenerSchnit (Buffalo)

This guy took way to long to cut and paste.

[Potomophobia 17]

Shipped.Let me think of a tougher question.

[Knollie919 0]

ask a hockey question lol

[footlongconey 0]

OAFO

[coesillian 0]

During WWII....that's World War 2 for all you youngsters..... the Air Force hired statisticians to study the bullet hole patterns of bombers returning from flights over Germany to determine where best to shield planes in future bombing raids.Their recommendation was to place extra shielding over the areas that were unscathed.What was their reasoning?

Since they hired satisticians it is obvious that they put armor on the unscathed areas because they did not get hit yet, therefore they calculated that those areas have a higher likelyhood of getting hit the next time out.mathematicians aren't mechanics, they crunch numbers, thats had to of been their reasoning.king kay on stars Lois, thankyouverymuch

[coesillian 0]

ask a hockey question lol

whcich defenceman has the most all time points in his NHL career

[footlongconey 0]

An anecdote goes as follows: “The Germans shot down too many Allied bombers during the World War II, so the British sent for an American expert. The expert went to Great Britain to take a look at the damaged planes which had made it back. After considering the situation, the expert had extra armor installed to undamaged places of the planes.” Was the expert right, wrong, both, or none?Yes, he was!One could say that the expert was right: planes had made it back so any damage in them was apparently non-lethal, thus the existing damaged places did not need extra armor. To improve armor on non-lethal damage would be wasteful, as such armor would not be needed. Obviously those planes which did not make it back had received hits on the places where the examined planes had no damage, thus armoring the untouched places would help to increase survivability.On the other hand, one can argue that the expert was wrong: if there is a limited amount of damage the planes can take before suffering problems during a mission, the places where the planes got hit the most should be protected. Therefore, by armoring the places where no hits had been received, the expert did not increase the protection available to the crew, but only succeeded in increasing the weight of the airplanes thus making the situation worse. Thus the expert should have armored those places which got hit.There would also have been a third option, which would have been to do nothing. This would likely have been a worse course of action than either of the previously described ones, as doing nothing would have only upheld the status quo and not have made things better for the crew of the bombers. If the expert was very unsure about where to add the armor, this would have been the best course of action to take.