See, THAT'S the more interesting bit they haven't revealed yet: They're also doing away with the display. And the keyboard.

Thank you.

Doh! You beat me to the punch. Great minds...

Sounds familiar...

Mineral oil.

The rerevance is rerevant, indeed.

I had a hard time with this at first. I was thinking of this as a single photon, which is something a camera can only capture once it ENTERS the camera; not as it's moving. (Cameras track objects by capturing light that bounces off of them, but there's nothing to bounce off of a photon.)

"If you have questions, please talk to Thomas or myself."

You know the little saliva vacuum they use at the dentist? Can I get one of those, please?

I agree. Harvard should be embarrassed.

Sorry, yes. After posting I realized I should have included a quote:

For all the responses that give scenarios of one dragon, two dragons, three dragons, etc.: Your reasoning does NOT hold up in scenarios of four or more dragons.

With perfect logic, one of only three green-eyed dragons cannot deduce that he/she is a green-eyed dragon. If they could, then each blue-eyed dragon would come to the same incorrect conclusion. Your answer only works if the number of green-eyed dragons is equal to n, or equal to n+1 when the human states "at least…

I think the problem with inferring is that it is a form of assumption, which isn't the same as knowing.

The problem here is that just because no one else gave up their powers, I cannot assume that I have green eyes. Furthermore, I can never be the only dragon with green eyes if I can clearly see that other dragons have green eyes.

Tears...

My current thoughts:

Styrofoam rubbing against styrofoam. Felt-tip pen on newspaper. Popsicle stick on my tongue.