Seventh:- Our six year old daughter asked for a rabbit for Christmas. I told her she's a bit old for toy rabbits but she said "Not a toy, a real one."
I explained that keeping rabbits is a nuisance and messy and someone has to clean them out etc. She said "Oh, not a live one. I'd like a dead one so I can take it apart and see how it worked."

Perhaps later in the year...

violet/riga:- It's not illogical to assume there's only one of something - that's what William of Occam meant when he suggested we not mutiply entities needlessly.

violet/riga:- You're bringing your own pre-existing knowledge to bear on the question - which is exactly what this kind of test is supposed to teach you to eliminate.
If the question had said Splongegorblebrat instead of Paris you wouldn't have got caught. It's because you know that Paris is the name of a place. It might equally have been referring to a product or a person or anything else called Paris. Because it didn't /explicitly/ say that there are more than one entities called Paris is exactly why you assume that there is only one.

xTivo:- It's utterly wrong to say she did it. The facts presented could, for example, fit an innocent visitor who happened on the dying victim, tried First Aid, then went for help.

As I said above - it's this kind of misunderstanding that leads to flaws in the jury system. Even with a careful explanation by a good defense lawyer you'll find many people think as you do that she's guilty.

100%. Nothing wrong with the water question - it made perfect sense to me. As k3m15a said - it's about disconnecting yourself from everything you know and just living in the universe of information provided by the question /and nothing else/.

Many people have trouble screening off their existing knowledge like this, which is one reason why jury verdicts aren't always sensible. Though to be fair, juries are the least worst system readily available.

Air and propane, probably. Or butane.

They'll go far.

I wouldn't dismiss the cold-sky idea so quickly. It's really noticeable that if I park my car with the windscreen facing the open sky it freezes much faster than if I park it facing a building 40' away. The crown of the bubble can barely see anything except open cold sky from which it receives very little heat. The sides and bottom are surrounded by fences, ground, people etc. all of which are much warmer than the sky.

Brooks Bell:- I thought of that, but couldn't be arsed to mess around that night. Of course, it hasn't been cold enough since. Breezy, too.

A perfect example of "If you make it, someone will be daft enough to justify it to themselves."

A friend's comment about Ender's Game sums up pretty much what I feel about it, too. When I came across it as a teenager it was just what I needed - but reading them again they're very - well - teenagerish.

just a guy:- Yes, ice floats, but fluid in the film of a bubble isn't that mobile. I don't think it moves fast enough for the colder denser fluid to swim round to the top in time to make any difference. Watching the swirling patterns they barely move, nothing like as fast as they do in warm weather.

renderanything:- My brother and I must be very alike, despite being 15 years apart. When I emailed him the pictures he said he used to do the same when he lived in New England. Of course, he got a lot more opportunity there than here.

And ain't it a nuisance having so many variants.

Robertson and Torx would cover just about everything except for fine cabinetry, for which slotted still looks nice.

SparkS:- It was about -5°C and very still. We had to blow the bubbles with a toy electric bubble blower - using breath made them too warm to freeze before they hit the ground.

Marco:- I'll try an experiment tonight if it's cold enough - a bit of tinfoil above a bubble should even out the temperature difference and see if it makes any difference.

JohnnyCat:- the viewer is JAlbum, a bit of freeware that I'm always happy to promote. Google will turn it up for you.