Slashdot Mirror


Google's Math Puzzle

An anonymous reader writes "Commuters in Cambridge, Mass., are scratching their heads over signs challenging passers-by to solve a complicated math problem. The mysterious banners are actually a job-recruiting pitch from Google."

564 comments

  1. I'm a Reebok Sales Engineer! by garcia · · Score: 5, Funny

    NPR is clueless. That's why I am the one getting hired by Reebok! The URL was really 1828675309.com and let you to an OGG of Blink182 singing the standard Reebok commercial. At the end you were asked to go down to Foot Locker and buy a specific pair of shoes. On the bottom of the shoe was a keypad. Once you dialed 1829675309 you were connected with a Reebok HR rep and giving a job at a local Foot Locker.

    Job as a Google engineer, sheesh. What a load of crap! Would you like whitener or a pair of extra soft socks with your shoes? Perhaps a Nuggets jersey?

    1. Re:I'm a Reebok Sales Engineer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Reminds me of the recruitment method at my old university. If you could hack into and leave a message in the private mailbox of the head of IT you got an interview for a post-grad job.

    2. Re:I'm a Reebok Sales Engineer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Fiance is a store manager and recruiter for foot locker. Trust me, it's a lot easier than that to get a job there ;)

    3. Re:I'm a Reebok Sales Engineer! by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude,
      you are lying!

      1828675309 is not prime - it is equal to 37 * 49423657.

      And they said I was wasting my time learning the 37 times table up that far...

    4. Re:I'm a Reebok Sales Engineer! by Graff · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The URL was really 1828675309.com and let you to an OGG of Blink182 singing the standard Reebok commercial.

      On a side note, someone was very clever over at Cingular.com. The URL 8675309.com redirects you to Cingular's web site. I'm sure that only a small percentage of people have tried that URL but I'm sure that means that hundreds or thousands of people were redirected.

      Someone was definitely thinking when they set that up.
    5. Re:I'm a Reebok Sales Engineer! by jrockway · · Score: 3, Informative

      try http://www.7427466391.com/

      --
      My other car is first.
    6. Re:I'm a Reebok Sales Engineer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, yeah I bet cingular's sales went through the roof because of that!

    7. Re:I'm a Reebok Sales Engineer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      On a side note, someone was very clever over at Cingular.com. The URL 8675309.com redirects you to Cingular's web site. I'm sure that only a small percentage of people have tried that URL but I'm sure that means that hundreds or thousands of people were redirected.

      Hardly clever. It's in their TV ads for 'number portability', claiming that someone had a special number and didn't want to lose it.

    8. Re:I'm a Reebok Sales Engineer! by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      Which is a stupid ad, because no sane person would ever want to keep the phone number 8675309. It's the sort of thing you want to get rid of.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    9. Re:I'm a Reebok Sales Engineer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I usually round the value of e up to 3. This way it is easier to work with and is equal to Pi, which I usually round down to 3.

    10. Re:I'm a Reebok Sales Engineer! by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      That's because they have ads touting a chick dancing to the song.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    11. Re:I'm a Reebok Sales Engineer! by Graff · · Score: 1
      It's in their TV ads for 'number portability', claiming that someone had a special number and didn't want to lose it.

      Hmm, never saw those ads. Then again I don't watch much TV, just one or two shows a week.

      Still, it is a clever thing to use in an ad, especially if you are targeting 30 - 40 year olds who grew up with that song.
    12. Re:I'm a Reebok Sales Engineer! by c4ffeine · · Score: 1

      WTF? Am I being especially stupid, or are there infinitely many solutions to the question on the above site? I mean, there are infinitely many functions that satisfy f(1) through f(4)...

      --
      "73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
    13. Re:I'm a Reebok Sales Engineer! by jrockway · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there are, probably. Same with the above number...

      --
      My other car is first.
  2. Google by mfh · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Since Google is advertizing their site and recruiting people using strange methods, please visit my site and try our open source CMS:
    01101000 01110100 01110100 01110000 00111010 00101111 00101111 01100111 01100101 01101101 01110011 01101001 01110100 01100101 01110011 00101110 01101010 01100011 01101111 01101101 01110011 01100101 01110010 01110110 00101110 01101110 01100101 01110100
    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was much easier than Google's...

      http://gemsites.jcomserv.net

  3. Make it hard next time... by Mateito · · Score: 3, Funny
    1. Re:Make it hard next time... by ajayvb · · Score: 5, Funny

      Even easier... http://www.google.com/jobs/ Worked for me. I got through two interviews on the phone before being kicked out.

    2. Re:Make it hard next time... by sehryan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I like my women how I like my breakfast cereal: With 1 cup of 2% Vitamin D enriched milk.

      I prefer two cups myself

      --
      The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
    3. Re:Make it hard next time... by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1

      +1: Douglas Adams
      +1: Brooks Hatlen
      who caught that?

    4. Re:Make it hard next time... by cpmte · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you solve both problems, the URL you are given is http://www.google.com/labjobs/

  4. not that complicated by CommanderTaco · · Score: 4, Informative

    about 20 mins worth of programming, and i'm not that smart. it ends up taking you to this page.

    1. Re:not that complicated by benito27uk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or just use Google!

    2. Re:not that complicated by justkarl · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you think that Google will get confused, after the link was put on slashdot? Just think, they're probably up to about 500 hits and climbing by now.

      Then they're gonna wonder where all the applications are.

    3. Re:not that complicated by artemis67 · · Score: 4, Funny

      As you can imagine, we get many, many resumes every day, so we developed this little process to increase the signal to noise ratio.

      Yes, that is, until somebody posted your link on Slashdot...

    4. Re:not that complicated by vchoy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Quote: As you can imagine, we get many, many resumes every day, so we developed this little process to increase the signal to noise ratio. We apologize for taking so much of your time just to ask you to consider working with us.

      Well done, you have successfully increased the noise to signal ratio! :P

    5. Re:not that complicated by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess they are clever enough to filter out all requests having slashdot.org as referrer.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:not that complicated by grub · · Score: 2, Funny


      Just think, they're probably up to about 500 hits and climbing by now.

      So long as Google's mail servers filter out messages with text such as "g00gl3 r0x0r555 h1r3 m3, f4gg0rzzz!" they've likely just hit double digits.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    7. Re:not that complicated by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 5, Interesting
      about 20 mins worth of programming, and i'm not that smart. it ends up taking you to this page.

      This one is actually quite easy. We look for a particular host name in Google's address space. So let's try:

      $ host www.google.com
      www.google.com is an alias for www.google.akadns.net.
      www.google.akadns.net has address 216.239.59.147
      www.google.akadns.net has address 216.239.59.99
      www.google.akadns.net has address 216.239.59.104
      $ dnslog 216.239.59.0/24 | grep '^[1-9][0-9]*\.com.A'
      $

      Hmm, no luck. What about the /16?

      $ dnslog 216.239.0.0/16 | grep '^[1-9][0-9]*\.com.A'
      466453.com A 216.239.37.99
      466453.com A 216.239.39.99
      7427466391.com A 216.239.53.184
      466453.com A 216.239.57.99
      $

      Well, we have a candidate, and it is indeed the correct one.

      Once you have that domain name, you can search for more information.

    8. Re:not that complicated by stupid_is · · Score: 1
      It's a typo - they actually meant to say that it was to increase the noise to signal ratio.

      --
      -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
    9. Re:not that complicated by robslimo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't suppose the referrer field that says "slashdot.org" that all the browsers will passing out like bus tokens will cause any notice at google, eh?

      Nah, they'd have to be pretty web-savvy to notice that.

    10. Re:not that complicated by div_2n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Presumably they are looking for geeks to apply. They put that out there and it gets posted to Slashdot (which they probably expected) and gets deciphered in less than 20 minutes or so (which they also probably expected) and inevitably results in lots of geeks pondering applying to Google.

      Sounds reasonable and gets them good exposure at the same time. There is a reason why Google is a household name. This is one more example.

    11. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They put that out there and it gets posted to Slashdot (which they probably expected) and gets deciphered in less than 20 minutes or so (which they also probably expected) and inevitably results in lots of geeks pondering applying to Google.

      Right. Because all the geeks here at Slashdot never considered applying to work at Google before.

    12. Re:not that complicated by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Informative
      Interestingly, that's not cheating. That's exactly what Google are probably looking for. You didn't go charging through millions of digits of 'e' to find the answer; instead, you went looking for any long numerical URLs registered by Google.

      That's a much more efficient search strategy. Just what they're after, methinks.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    13. Re:not that complicated by DigitumDei · · Score: 1

      Yes months down the line its easy to google for...

      I doubt they took any applications from the resulting web page seriously after the results got onto their own search engine. But before it got there, I'm sure a bunch of people had to solve it for themselves.

    14. Re:not that complicated by gowen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice idea, except if you've only seen the billboard, how do you know it has anything to do with Google?

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    15. Re:not that complicated by Skraggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I used an even more twisted form of efficiency, I used parallel research, I looked for the answer on Slashdot. Took very little effort on my part, and got me the correct answer on the back of others.

      I guess I must be perfect CEO material.

      --
      A Skoda is for life, not for casual humour.
    16. Re:not that complicated by geordie_loz · · Score: 1

      of course you'd have to know that the add was google's before hand.. otherwise, you need to search for most recently registered domains, and then look for numbers.

    17. Re:not that complicated by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Well, so much for Goggle's grand plan of changing the signal to noise ratio... their "secret" e-mail address is now officially slashdotted. :)

    18. Re:not that complicated by div_2n · · Score: 1

      Maybe maybe not. You never know. Besides, they seem to be looking for people and maybe people that wouldn't have been considered before have gained more experience and skills since last applying so they are trying to get the latest info on the geek crowd to see who is worthy.

    19. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those other number.com URLs point to google.com. It seems like 466453.com is some weird leet-speak for google.com.

    20. Re:not that complicated by Council · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Though there's no need to go churning through millions of digits. The density of primes among intergers is roughly 1/ln(n), so one in every 40-odd 10-digit numbers is prime. And indeed, the prime in question appears at about the 100th digit. Not that far in.

      So the strategy of searching the digits of e is pretty quick. Even without knowing much perl and having to look things up a lot, I did it in a matter of minutes.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    21. Re:not that complicated by grazzy · · Score: 2, Funny

      References: I read slashdot.

    22. Re:not that complicated by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, that's not cheating.

      I'm afraid, but it is. The data was collected from DNS packets flowing through various networks. If there's a match, it means that someone else has already solved the puzzle and queried for the domain name.

      Of course, you could get a domain list for .COM by other means (VeriSign's TLD sharing program comes to my mind). IMHO, this wouldn't qualify as cheating (or at least, not as much).

    23. Re:not that complicated by davorg · · Score: 5, Insightful
      how do you know it has anything to do with Google?

      You don't need to know that. Here's how I solved it when I first heard about it in July.

      #!/usr/bin/perl

      use Net::DNS;

      my $res = Net::DNS::Resolver->new;

      my $e = '2718281828459045235360287471352662497757247093699 9'
      .'59574966967627724076630353547594571382178525 166427'
      .'427466391932003059921817413596629043572 90033429526'
      .'0595630738132328627943490763233829 8807531952510190'
      .'11573834187930702154089149934 884167509244761460668';

      foreach (0 .. length $e) {
      my $n = substr $e, $_, 10;
      my $q = $res->search("$n.com");

      if ($q) {
      print $n, "\n";
      last;
      }
      }
    24. Re:not that complicated by smaksly · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You get 466453 if you type google on a phone keypad.

    25. Re:not that complicated by Phisbut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also clear that during the interview process, they're gonna ask people how they found the answer. If you can detail your calculations or reasoning, you're in; if you say "I Googled the question and found the answer...", they'll say "Well, thanks for the flattery, but get the hell out"

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    26. Re:not that complicated by Council · · Score: 1

      Google likes registering things like that. I remember being bored one day and moving my left hand over one space and typing Hoohlr instead of Google, and being terribly startled when it actually took me to Google. With the buttons and logo changed to say 'hoohlr search'. It's not there anymore, so maybe it was non-Google and got shut down for it. Anyone else ever run into that site?

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    27. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hmm, no luck. What about the /16?
      You kids and your outmoded Class B thinking. Why not just ASK what they own?

      $ whois -h whois.arin.net google
      GOOGLE (GOOGLE)
      Google Inc. (GOGL)
      Google Inc. (ZG39-ARIN) [email & phone number elided by poster]
      Google Inc. (AS15169) GOOGLE 15169
      Google Inc. (AS15169) GOOGLE 15169
      GOOGLE CW-204-188-0-B (NET-204-188-0-0-2) 204.188.0.0 - 204.188.0.255
      Google Inc. GOOGLE (NET-216-239-32-0-1) 216.239.32.0 - 216.239.63.255
      Google Inc. GOOGLE (NET-64-233-160-0-1) 64.233.160.0 - 64.233.191.255
      Google Inc. GOOGLE (NET-66-249-64-0-1) 66.249.64.0 - 66.249.79.255
      Google Inc. GOOGLE (NET-216-239-32-0-1) 216.239.32.0 - 216.239.63.255
      Google Inc. EC12-1-GOOGLE (NET-64-68-80-0-1) 64.68.80.0 - 64.68.87.255
      Google Inc. GOOGLE-2 (NET-66-102-0-0-1) 66.102.0.0 - 66.102.15.255
      Google Inc. GOOGLE (NET-64-233-160-0-1) 64.233.160.0 - 64.233.191.255
      Google Inc. GOOGLE (NET-66-249-64-0-1) 66.249.64.0 - 66.249.79.255
      Google Inc SBC067126100008030728 (NET-67-126-100-8-1) 67.126.100.8 - 67.126.100.15
      GOOGLE INC-040731031303 SBC06922402120829040731031306 (NET-69-224-21-208-1) 69.224.21.208 - 69.224.21.215
      GOOGLE INC-040731032731 SBC06922403108829040731032734 (NET-69-224-31-88-1) 69.224.31.88 - 69.224.31.95
      GOOGLE INC-040731032750 SBC06922403110429040731032753 (NET-69-224-31-104-1) 69.224.31.104 - 69.224.31.111
      Google Inc. MFN-T324-216-200-251-112-29 (NET-216-200-251-112-1) 216.200.251.112 - 216.200.251.119
      Google Inc10988888 SBC06911114115229040325120125 (NET-69-111-141-152-1) 69.111.141.152 - 69.111.141.159
      Google Inc10988957 SBC06911114116029040325120238 (NET-69-111-141-160-1) 69.111.141.160 - 69.111.141.167

      Okay, so that's a lot of networks to search through, even if some of them are pretty tiny. Let's assume it's in the same range as whatever nslookup google.com returns. Why guess how large that allocation is? It says right up there that it's a /19.

    28. Re:not that complicated by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      I took the other route: paid an Indian PhD 50-cents to solve it for me. In case you call it cheating, that better reflects the (new) reality of the work world anyhow: Brains are a cheap global commodity. They should put up a people-skills test instead.

    29. Re:not that complicated by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice idea, except if you've only seen the billboard, how do you know it has anything to do with Google?

      Good point, but the Google hint just makes it possible to use a more selective index. It's not required, strictly speaking.

      If you haven't got this piece of information, you run into another problem: false solutions. In turns out that there is more than one ten-digit domain.

      For example, how would you know that this site is the wrong one?

    30. Re:not that complicated by ePhil_One · · Score: 2
      It's also clear that during the interview process, they're gonna ask people how they found the answer.

      I used outside the box reasoning to devine the answer. This is a very desirable trait. I'd also point out that my solution was far more efficient than the one my so called competition utilized, and after all don't they want someone who can find the fastest, most efficient, solution?

      Now, who can help me with part two

      The answer to this equation as the password.

      f(1)= 7182818284
      f(2)= 8182845904
      f(3)= 8747135266
      f(4)= 7427466391
      f(5)= __________
      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    31. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try 60 seconds in Mathematica... now, smart ass,
      which is the first ten digit prime in the expansion of e whose palindrome is also prime?

      Send answer to:

      9999991@gmail.com

      (And if you didn't see that 9999991 is the largest prime GMail account name possible, don't bother.)

    32. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just for fun, we look up who else you looked at while searching for addresses owned by google:

      OrgName: 702 communications
      NetRange: 216.239.0.0 - 216.239.31.255

      OrgName: VIF Internet
      NetRange: 216.239.64.0 - 216.239.95.255

      OrgName: iPass Incorporated
      NetRange: 216.239.96.0 - 216.239.111.255

      OrgName: CNET Networks Inc.
      NetRange: 216.239.112.0 - 216.239.127.255

      OrgName: Omnis Network, LLC
      NetRange: 216.239.128.0 - 216.239.143.255

      OrgName: Folio (FN) Inc.
      NetRange: 216.239.144.0 - 216.239.159.255

      OrgName: UNIVERSAL TELECOM
      NetRange: 216.239.160.0 - 216.239.191.255

      OrgName: Cable & Wireless Americas Operations, Inc.
      NetRange: 216.239.192.0 - 216.239.223.255

      OrgName: iNYC
      NetRange: 216.239.224.0 - 216.239.255.255

    33. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they made that puzzle a little too easy since the relevent server had to have a DNS entry.

    34. Re:not that complicated by JPDeckers · · Score: 3, Informative

      5966290435

    35. Re:not that complicated by gowen · · Score: 0

      Because 2147483647 is the square of 46341.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    36. Re:not that complicated by UnanimousCoward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're missing the point, which is:

      increase the hype by veiling it as an elite problem...

      ---

      --
      Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
    37. Re:not that complicated by sehryan · · Score: 1

      I would imagine they are filtering out any requests that have a referrer that is anything other than the page in the test that comes directly before this one.

      --
      The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
    38. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yah. brains are a cheap global commodity. that's why the US is stockpiling arms and ignoring education.

    39. Re:not that complicated by DrEasy · · Score: 1

      Just curious: what is an easy way to generate the digits of e?

      --
      "In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
    40. Re:not that complicated by photon317 · · Score: 1


      Very elegant, google would be proud :)

      --
      11*43+456^2
    41. Re:not that complicated by parkrrrr · · Score: 2, Informative

      You google for "digits of e" and select the second result.

    42. Re:not that complicated by bob_jenkins · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh. My strategy was to google for "consecutive digits of e prime". Google told me the answer, that the site pointed to another site, and that it was in the end an ad for Google engineers. I mighta switched to Teoma once I saw Google was involved, I don't remember.

      What I want to know is the point behind that other billboard on 101, the one that says "Applications extreme makeovers TENFOLD HOTTER THAN HELL" and has a picture of a hairy pig wearing sunglasses and a scarf. I was guessing it was associated with the digits-of-e billboard, because both so completely fail to communicate anything useful to the passing motorist.

    43. Re:not that complicated by sharkdba · · Score: 1

      I guess they are clever enough to filter out all requests having slashdot.org as referrer.

      and

      I would imagine they are filtering out any requests that have a referrer that is anything other than the page in the test that comes directly before this one.

      Exactly. I would imagine any somewhat smart /.er would at least open a new browser (or Mozilla tab) and paste the url there instead of just clicking on it directly from /.

      This would at least nullify the referrer, but yes, google is probably checking the referrer from their previous puzzle page.

      --
      The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
    44. Re:not that complicated by Tinidril · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar with dnslog, and searches in google, apt-cache, and sourceforge all came up empty. It looks like a cool tool. Mind telling me where to find it?

      --
      XML is the best data format; unless your data needs to be read or written by a human or a computer.
    45. Re:not that complicated by andy@petdance.com · · Score: 2, Informative
      Because 2147483647 is the square of 46341.

      No it's not. Squares can only end in 0, 1, 4, 5, 6 or 9.

    46. Re:not that complicated by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know. Thats what you get when you miscopy the number into Mathematica. I'll get my coat.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    47. Re:not that complicated by Scorillo47 · · Score: 1

      In my case it took me about one hour of C# programming and head scratching to found out the fifth number. The puzzle is not very hard but it requires a little bit of unorthodox thinking. Don't start with classical extrapolation techniques...

      If you want hard math puzzles, check the "Ponder this" site from IBM - there are several beautiful puzzles there: http://www.research.ibm.com/ponder/

      --
      Don't try to use the force. Do or do not, there is no try.
    48. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "I guess they are clever enough to filter out all requests having slashdot.org as referrer."

      a: they're not
      b: you could type it
      c: it's an email address

    49. Re:not that complicated by jrockway · · Score: 1

      Yeah how hard was it to type:

      $ dc
      46341 46341 * p

      before he posted?

      2147488281 != 2147483647 !!!!

      --
      My other car is first.
    50. Re:not that complicated by kelzer · · Score: 4, Funny

      ROFL. Somebody please mod parent up. That's so funny.

      Never use a $4 calculator when you can use a $1600 software package instead (and then make an invalid conclusion because it rounded off for you!).

      --

      ---------------------------------------------
      SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    51. Re:not that complicated by gowen · · Score: 1

      Hey, I used what was open on my desktop. And it wasn't rounding, I just miscopied it.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    52. Re:not that complicated by rk · · Score: 1

      With that said, is it even cheating to just follow a link provided by someone else? I just leveraged someone else's knowledge to arrive at the answer. Even those who wrote code to find the answer, you didn't first sit down to prove that the formula you use to generate e is correct, did you?

      Good developers know exactly what to write, but great developers know exactly what to steal.

    53. Re:not that complicated by DigitalLove · · Score: 1


      Not that complicated? -It seems you got the wrong answer, so did google.

      Oddly enough, there actually is a working f(x) answer and even google does not know what it is...

      http://www.datarescue.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=g et_topic;f=4;t=000183

    54. Re:not that complicated by liamo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or you could copy e to 10,000 places

    55. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no false solutions. It asks for the first 10 digit prime number which is also found in e. But since all possible combinations of numbers are found in e, the answer is the first 10 digit prime number, and the number e has nothing to do with it.

    56. Re:not that complicated by computational+super · · Score: 1

      I'm way impressed (that was right, since it worked on the linux.org site). What's your background, that you were able to figure that out? Are you a math major? I won't ask you for the solution, since I'm trying to figure it out myself, but I'm curious what sort of person can do this.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    57. Re:not that complicated by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      That is the solution for the upper managment position.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    58. Re:not that complicated by Cyberhawk · · Score: 1

      Try make an series expansion of exp(1). Numerical answer, with any precision you want.

      Ah, the days of FORTRAN programming finally paid off.

    59. Re:not that complicated by rpresser · · Score: 1

      OK, so where did this come from? I know it starts at the 126th decimal digit of e, but I can't make any sense of the sequence
      0 4 22 98 126 (or 1 5 23 99 127 either)

    60. Re:not that complicated by rpresser · · Score: 1

      Never mind; I found a page which explains the logic. The offset sequence is not important; the digit strings are.

    61. Re:not that complicated by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      It's not too hard to get that one. Go to

      http://wikisource.org/wiki/E_to_10,000_places

      And you should be able to figure it out.

    62. Re:not that complicated by DrEasy · · Score: 1

      (disclaimer: this is a newbie type of question, apologies if the answer is too obvious)

      Yes, I did think of a series expansion, but I guess my more general question was: how do you manipulate any number with a 100+ digit precision in a program? What data type in a programming language such as Java allows you to store it? How about interpreted languages with no explicit type declarations? If you store things in a big array, you'd have to hand code all needed operations, right? Am I missing something terribly obvious?

      I suppose Fortran or Matlab have an easy way to hide such details, and there must also be some dedicated library in Java to do this, but then the question becomes: how do they do it?

      --
      "In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
    63. Re:not that complicated by humphrm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's a supposedly true story I heard in some class years ago - probably dynamics or physics or organic or something...

      A physics teacher gives each student a barometer, and tells them that using only the barometer and brief visits to the town's tallest building, they have to determine the height of the building. Grades would be awarded based on the most creative solution.

      One student started at the top, took a reading, moved to the ground floor, took a reading, and then based on that information and the barometric pressure that day, determined the approximate height of the building.

      Other students basically copied the first, although with different variations (bottom to top, etc)

      The student who received the only A? He went to the basement. Found the building engineer's office. Knocked on the door. Told the guy who answered, "I have a fine barometer. If you tell me exactly how tall this building is, it's yours."

      --
      -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
    64. Re:not that complicated by rsd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The sum to all digits turns to be 49.

      there is no function to it.

      The variable in f(x) as f(1), f(2) is the x position of a ten digit number that sums to be 49.

      With a tiny perl program it turns to be: 5966290435
      This is in position 128 in the exp(1) number.

    65. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Search for the four numbers in the sequence and you find a site where one guy noticed that all the four numbers are the first four numbers that are digits of e whose digits sum to 49. However, his answer didn't work when I tried it. Maybe they've got enough resumes and are trying to keep out the riff raff.

    66. Re:not that complicated by gnu-sucks · · Score: 1

      Where can I get the source code, or binary for that matter, of dnslog? All I can find is its a popular username to use for DNS daemon accounts.

    67. Re:not that complicated by fbg111 · · Score: 1

      They put that out there and it gets posted to Slashdot (which they probably expected) and gets deciphered in less than 20 minutes or so (which they also probably expected) and inevitably results in lots of geeks pondering applying to Google.

      There are still geeks on slashdot?

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    68. Re:not that complicated by milo_Gwalthny · · Score: 1

      Dear Sir,

      Seeing as how you know how to take credit for the hard work of others, we would like to offer you a position in management.

      Sincerely,

      Google

      _____________________

      --
      Milo
    69. Re:not that complicated by Jorkapp · · Score: 1

      Qualifications and Awards:
      * Excellent Karma on slashdot.org
      * UID less than 4 digits on slashdot.org
      * "Certified Karma whore" - Anonymous Coward on slashdot.org
      * "1337 d00d" - Some random CS player

      --
      Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
    70. Re:not that complicated by Dahan · · Score: 1
      Yeah how hard was it to type:

      $ dc
      46341 46341 * p

      Harder than typing:

      $ dc
      46341d*p

      :)

    71. Re:not that complicated by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      The data type you're looking for is the string. For this specific problem, you don't need to do any mathematical operations on any numbers larger than 10 digets - which will hopefully fit in a 32 bit integer, but may not.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    72. Re:not that complicated by rbbs · · Score: 1

      I heard that story too -- in my version though the student went to the top and dropped the barometer off the top and timed the time took to hit the ground...

      i quite liked that...

    73. Re:not that complicated by jekewa · · Score: 1
      If there's a match, it means that someone else has already solved the puzzle and queried for the domain name.

      That's not entirely true as any good name server will go get the list if it doesn't have it. In that case it'll probably be a more complete list than just the few that might be previously queried--those'll be in the cache, which is probably what you were thinking of.

      And you can completely avoid VeriSign by getting the primary name server for the domain from whois, and use that server in your nslookup to list the domain.

      --
      End the FUD
    74. Re:not that complicated by efagerho · · Score: 1

      Why go through all this, when you can simply just solve the problem? If you think about it for a few seconds, you come to realize that the solution they want is a simple brute force. Why? Because the digits are completely random and so are the primes too, so there can be no constructive method (with the math we know) to find a faster way to solve it.

      If you code a program you'll notice that you'll find a solution almost instantly. The interesting problem is the 2nd one, because it actually requires that you think. But that one is easy too. :)

    75. Re:not that complicated by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      What did he time it with? The cheater!

    76. Re:not that complicated by belroth · · Score: 1
      There are many variations on this including where the student intially flunks the test and on appeal comes with several other methods. Eventually he admits to knowing the 'correct' answer but he considered this too boring and obvious.

      Other methods are left as an exercise for the readership...

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    77. Re:not that complicated by tenton · · Score: 1

      Might be more urban legend than real. It's also something that gets attributed to Niels Bohr, and sometimes Rutherford is involved in the story (as the impartial arbitrator).

    78. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their answer is still correct, the reasoning of the person on the page you linked to is flawed. He is assuming a different question than the one google is assuming. Google probably should have stated the question explicitly though. Incidentally, there are many different answers to the question that JCM on the page you linked to assumed. This is pretty basic, so I'm sure that people at google realize this.

    79. Re:not that complicated by isorox · · Score: 1

      That's rubbish. I'd have thrown the barometer off the top of the building, timed it going down, and worked out the height from s~4.9t^2.

    80. Re:not that complicated by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      That post just got you on my friends list.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    81. Re:not that complicated by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      5966290435

      [My reply isn't necessarily directed at the parent poser]

      The answer is meaningless (and dangerous) if you don't understand the question.

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    82. Re:not that complicated by 70Bang · · Score: 1

      UL/FOAF. Check out "Games for the SuperIntelligent" and "More Games for the SuperIntelligent" both by James Fixx, who died young of a heart attack, but was a marathon runner & member of Mensa (=="table" in Latin).

    83. Re:not that complicated by spoonyfork · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm curious what sort of person can do this

      I'm not the original poster but I did solve the puzzles this afternoon without "cheating". I'm a psychology/philosophy major that hasn't seen a math book in 10 years and I was able to figure it out. What I find interesting is that the answer to the first question (at least how I solved it) was an indirect hint at how to solve the second puzzle. Good luck, it was fun to work through it.

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    84. Re:not that complicated by Squiffy · · Score: 1

      The answer doesn't have anything to do with sequence. One you find the answer it will all add up.

    85. Re:not that complicated by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 1
      The problem of manipulating very large integers is something of a computer science "classic." It becomes important in science applications, databases, and encryption (how well do you think your data would be protected if you could only use a 32-bit or 64-bit key?). A couple of solutions:
      • Simply create an array of integers. Each one is set to 1 or 0, and the array is treated as a very large binary number. With a bit of binary arithmetic knowledge, it's trivial to code functions for the various math functions (add, subtract, multiply, divide, modulus, shift left/right, boolean logic, etc). Of course, this is a very inefficient and wasteful method, but it's easy to understand and implement. 1st year compsci students love it; it's somewhat similar to bubblesort in this regard.
      • A more refined version of the same solution would be to create another array of integers, but this time "fill" each integer completely before spilling over into the next. This solution isn't as intuitive, because it requires you to think of ints as simply chunks of bits rather than independent numbers, but does work more efficiently. Again, with basic binary arithmetic knowledge, it's possible to write functions to handle normal integer math.

      If you want to know all the grisly details, they are, as always, in Knuth. While most languages have library functions to handle this sort of stuff, it's still good to understand how it works.
      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
    86. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Add the digits, beeyotch!!! Those are the first four 10 digit segments of e that add up to 49. They're looking for the fifth. Dumbass. I'm only 8 years old and I figured that out in approximately .1415 nanoseconds.

      Love, Will Hunting.

    87. Re:not that complicated by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      That's rubbish. I'd have thrown the barometer off the top of the building, timed it going down, and worked out the height from s~4.9t^2.

      And a number of other methods, many involving the destruction of the barometer.

      For instance: (With a mercury barometer) take out the meter stick. Level the barometer. Measure its height and its shadow. Measure the building's shadow.

      Hang it on a rope, swing as a pendulum, time the oscilations.

      (Hang it on a rope, haul it back up, measure the rope. B-) )

      I recall working out a dozen or so for a variant of that joke and I'm sure I didn't get them all. (Most of them were more accurate than measuring the pressure, too.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    88. Re:not that complicated by DigitalLove · · Score: 1

      The "function of x" notation used by google does indeed imply a "function" of some sort but the "correct" answer according to google is not a function in spite of it's notation.

    89. Re:not that complicated by LinuxHam · · Score: 1

      I used outside the box reasoning to devine the answer

      Oh, but like most Slashdotters, you can't spell! (Pulls the red lever to open the trap door, thus ending the interview)

      "devise", btw. And don't go for the $DEITY angle, either.. that's "divine" as in "divine intervention". ;)

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    90. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $ bc -l
      scale=200
      e(1)

    91. Re:not that complicated by arose · · Score: 3, Funny

      /. raising the noise to signal ratio since 1997

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    92. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would use a rope and dangle the barometer from the top of the building until it touches the ground. Then measure the length of the rope.

      Cross-check the result the result by dropping the barometer and measuring the time to hit the ground.

      h = 0.5 g t^2. :)

    93. Re:not that complicated by EngMedic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      this story has been around a long, long time -- i heard it first in AP Chem in high school. google for it, but the "traditional" text generally credits neils bohr as being the student :

      Sir Ernest Rutherford, President of the Royal Academy, and recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, related the following story:

      Some time ago I received a call from a colleague. He was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed a perfect score. The instructor and the student agreed to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected.

      I read the examination question: "Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer."

      The student had answered: "Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to the street, and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building."

      The student really had a strong case for full credit since he had really answered the question completely and correctly! On the other hand, if full credit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade in his physics course and certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this.

      I suggested that the student have another try. I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he hadn't written anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said he had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go on in the next minute, he dashed off his answer, which read:

      "Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula x=0.5*a*t^2, calculate the height of the building."

      At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and gave the student almost full credit. While leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said that he had other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were.

      "Well," said the student, "there are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer. For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use of simple proportion, determine the height of the building."

      "Fine," I said, "and others?"

      "Yes," said the student, "there is a very basic measurement method you will like. In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units. A very direct method."

      "Of course. If you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of g [gravity] at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of g, the height of the building, in principle, can be calculated."

      "On this same tack, you could take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swing it as a pendulum. You could then calculate the height of the building by the period of the precession."

      "Finally," he concluded, "there are many other ways of solving the problem. Probably the best," he said, "is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: 'Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine barometer. If you will tell me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer.'"

      At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the c

      --
      filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
    94. Re:not that complicated by Qwertie · · Score: 1

      Good idea, but wait... how did you know it would be in the first 250 digits? /:) Anyway, since they're "tackling a lot of engineering challenges that may not actually be solvable", I should think they want an engineer or a mathematician (and maybe both in one?) and not just any UNIX geek.

    95. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5966290435?

      isn't it blisteringly obvious that this isn't a prime number?

    96. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is wrong. Google's f(x) is a function. There is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. From the statement of the problem one can make several reasonable assumptions: 1) f is a function; 2) the domain of f contains the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}; and 3) the range of f contains the set {7182818284, 8182845904, 8747135266, 7427466391}. None of these assumptions are violated by google's expected result of f(5) = 5966290435, and the posted method of obtaining that result. f is still a function in this case.
      I think that you and J.C. Roberts do not understand the definition of a function and that this is where your confusion is coming from. Here is a good definition to help you out.

    97. Re:not that complicated by davorg · · Score: 1
      how did you know it would be in the first 250 digits?

      I didn't. That was just a prototype. I was planning to replace the assignment with an interator that generated the digits of e. I was pretty surprised when it came up with the right answer.

    98. Re:not that complicated by little_fluffy_clouds · · Score: 1

      I suspect he meant "divine" as in "divination"

      --
      What were the skies like when you were young?
    99. Re:not that complicated by DigitalLove · · Score: 1

      I only posted the link to /. to see comments from other people. Believe it or not, I wrote it but that does not matter much. The link you posted to the definition of a function (on wolfram) supports the claim that google's answer is wrong: "A function is a relation that uniquely associates members of one set with members of another set." The "answer" according to google has no relation associating members of one set with members of the other set, so it is not a function. If there is a mathematical relationship then anyone would be able to state the function. I really tried to state the function for google's answer but failed to find a way to do it. If someone has managed to succeed, I'd love to see it. If one can not state the function, one can not prove there is a relation. Alternately, if one can not state the relation, one can not have a function. The answer accepted by google is nothing more than blindly searching for the next occurance of something. There is no relation between one occurance and the next (that I've found/proven with their accepted answer), so as far as anyone knows, googles answer is not a function. Since it is assumed that f is a function, and a true function really does exist that satisfies the given 1 through 4, then the answer said real function gives for 5 is far more correct than a whimsical search for a pattern. Googles solution is not mathematicly sound. Until I see someone state the google answer as real function and prove the relationship, their answer is at best nonsense numerology.

    100. Re:not that complicated by DigitalLove · · Score: 1

      (slashdot formatting...)
      I only posted the link to /. to see comments from other people. Believe it or not, I wrote it but that does not matter much.

      The link you posted to the definition of a function (on wolfram) supports the claim that google's answer is wrong:

      "A function is a relation that uniquely associates members of one set with members of another set."

      The "answer" according to google has no relation associating members of one set with members of the other set, so it is not a function. If there is a mathematical relationship then anyone would be able to state the function. I really tried to state the function for google's answer but failed to find a way to do it. If someone has managed to succeed, I'd love to see it.

      If one can not state the function, one can not prove there is a relation. Alternately, if one can not state the relation, one can not have a function.

      The answer accepted by google is nothing more than blindly searching for the next occurance of something. There is no relation between one occurance and the next (that I've found/proven with their accepted answer), so as far as anyone knows, googles answer is not a function.

      Since it is assumed that f is a function, and a true function really does exist that satisfies the given 1 through 4, then the answer said real function gives for 5 is far more correct than a whimsical search for a pattern.

      Googles solution is not mathematicly sound. Until I see someone state the google answer as real function and prove the relationship, their answer is at best nonsense numerology.

    101. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The following relation works for google's function:
      For n a positive integer, find the n'th maximal string of consecutive digits with sum of 49 occuring in the decimal expansion of e.
      To be clear, strings are read from left to right, and the n+1th string must begin at a position to the right of the beginning of the n'th string. By maximal, I mean that we must always take as many digits as we can for our strings. Thus there is no ambiguity for stings which may or may not end in a 0.
      If we restrict the domain to the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} it should be clear that this is a function. The relation maps 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to strings in the decimal expansion of e, and it also does this uniquely. Nothing more is needed(although my relation actually works for all positive integers).
      I think that your notion of a function is probably too specialized. Try reading through the wikipedia article on functions(especially the "intuitive introduction" section). This gives several examples that I think will help to illustrate the generality of the concept.
      Incidentally, I thought your own analysis of the problem was quite interesting, but you are still mistaken in characterizing google's expected solution as invalid. There are many ways to answer the problem that are all valid from a mathematical point of view. You could, for example, just compute the cubic polynomial interplant of the four given points, and then compute the fifth point rather easily from the resultant cubic. I haven't done this, but I am pretty sure that that the point you get will be different than your fifth point, or google's fifth point. Nonetheless, all are correct.
    102. Re:not that complicated by DigitalLove · · Score: 1

      Thank you for taking the time to look at all this and point me towards other ways of looking at it. The real problem I find with googles' answer is it's lack of determinism. As the wikipedia link you posted states:

      The "rule" defining a function can be specified by a formula, a relationship, or simply a table listing the outputs against inputs. The most important feature of a function is that it is deterministic, always producing the same output from the same input.


      The reason why I believe Google's answer fails to be detrministic is simply because if you change the base, the whole thing falls apart. In other words, it's not a relation between *values* of the domain set (1,2,3,4,5) and the range set. -As you pointed out, I'm keeping with the formal (or as you said "specialized") definition of the term "function" rather than making allowing for a loose and generalized definition.

      You could, for example, just compute the cubic polynomial interplant of the four given points, and then compute the fifth point rather easily from the resultant cubic. I haven't done this, but I am pretty sure that that the point you get will be different than your fifth point, or google's fifth point. Nonetheless, all are correct.


      It is not my own work but a firend pointed out a problem with your suggested polynomial approach. This is what he had to say:
      The first thing I tried was the method of finite differences. In essence use the four given values to solve for a olynomial of the form:

      f(n) = a3*x^3 + a2*x^2 + a1*x^1 + a0

      Doing this gives f(5) = 2775619300. While finite differences only solves for polynomials, experience and intuition let one recognize other patterns. E.g. I can usually recognize exponentials.

      For this to have been valid I would have expected it to yield a quadratic rather than a cubic. That is, I would have expected f(1) through f(3) to predict f(4) via this method.



      It seem like we could end up debating the definitions of both "function" and "correct" endlessly. ;-)

      Have you seen anyone able state the function of google's answer? I've tried a number of times but have not been able to do it. I'm not saying it can not be done but I've had no luck at it.

      Though I don't know who you are, I appreciate the time you've taken. If you'd like to contact me via email, please do. I'd love to prove myself wrong and find a somwhat formalized (an exception for decimal only) function for the google answer.

      mercury no spam at abac dot com

      Thanks, JCR
    103. Re:not that complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll admit I failed to spell check, but you need to expand you vocabulary, I did mean "divine"

      Main Entry: divine
      Function: verb
      Inflected Form(s): divined; divining
      Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French diviner, from Latin divinare, from divinus, n.
      transitive senses
      1 : to discover intuitively : INFER
      2 : to discover or locate (as water or minerals underground) usually by means of a divining rod
      intransitive senses
      1 : to practice divination : PROPHESY
      2 : to perceive intuitively

      I'll leave it to you to determine which definition to apply

    104. Re:not that complicated by rk · · Score: 1

      <AOL>Me too!</AOL>

    105. Re:not that complicated by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar with dnslog, and searches in google, apt-cache, and sourceforge all came up empty. It looks like a cool tool. Mind telling me where to find it?

      Currently, it's unreleased software, but you can find a draft technical report describing it (and some of its applications) on the site of my passive DNS replication project.

  5. Dangerous? by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hope that drivers who see that can still pay attention to the road. Regardless of whether they are trying to think about it or not.

    --
    There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    1. Re:Dangerous? by Duke+Machesne · · Score: 1
      Dear Sir or Madame,

      Regarding your sig, it should read, properly:

      There are only 1 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't.


      The reason for this should be obvious.

      Hope to have helped,
      Duke Machesne
    2. Re:Dangerous? by Armando_Mcgillicutty · · Score: 1

      Could you please state the obvious reason? I always thought 10 was binary for "2", therefore the statement reads "There are two kinds of people...."

    3. Re:Dangerous? by Sepper · · Score: 1

      He refers in fact to this:
      http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/frustrations/5aa9 /

      And I do believe the answer to his question is in his Sig...

      --
      I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
    4. Re:Dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes please state the obvious.. Are you saying that people who dont understand binary are not people? Or are you saying that you are not a person because you dont understand binary? I dont get it.

    5. Re:Dangerous? by nyteroot · · Score: 1

      Clearly, because you always start counting from 0.

      --
      Ratio of replies to old sig content : replies to actual post content > 0.5. Sig changed.
    6. Re:Dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Programmers start counting from 0. Thus:
      typesOfPeople[0] = "Understand binary"
      typesOfPeople[1] = "Do not understand binary"
    7. Re:Dangerous? by Flaming_cows · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually it is "...10 types of people..." as the first digit represents the 'ones'. 1 is just 1 and 10 is 2. Please learn binary before correcting people on it.

    8. Re:Dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for clearing that up... I feel like such a retard!

    9. Re:Dangerous? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I'm a programmer, and while I start ordinal numbering from 0, I start cardinal numbering from 1... Like everyone else. What's the declaration of the typesOfPeople array? How many elements are in it? 2. Or 10 in binary. How many elements are there in your empty set? -1?

    10. Re:Dangerous? by leonmergen · · Score: 1

      ThinkGeek.com should feel like a retard too... they're selling a t-shirt with that exact phrase.

      --
      - Leon Mergen
      http://www.solatis.com
    11. Re:Dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just pointing out the logic I believed the guy who said it should be 1 instead of 10 was using. I never said he was right. I agree with you, to be honest.

    12. Re:Dangerous? by Armando_Mcgillicutty · · Score: 1

      I just don't think it would sound quite right if it translated to "There are 1 kinds of people".. I guess I'm funny that way.

  6. I wonder by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    if it would be acceptable to hack a whois database to see what domains are registered to google.com and just go there without solving the math problem. In fact, maybe they'd prefer that way, since Google has nothing to do with prime numbers but everything to do with the Internet.

    1. Re:I wonder by rusty0101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I presume that would work for billboards where 'Google' is prominently displayed somewhere on the billboard. From the images I have seen of the billboards, it ain't there.

      Given a Billboard where the only content is a text string '{first 10 digit prime in e}.com' there are three ways to find out that it is a 'google' ad.

      1. Solve the puzzle.
      2. Bribe the billboard owner. (surely you have seen this billboard advertizing itsel out at one time or another.)
      3. Wait till the news breaks that it is a Google Job offer.

      Something tells me that Google is more interested in people who quickly solve #1, vs people who can handle #2, or wait for #3.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    2. Re:I wonder by edbarbar · · Score: 1

      It's trivial to actually find the answer on the net, and so not a good indicator that you have any applicable skills.

      Maybe they are trying to find people curious enough to see the problem through.

      --
      Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
    3. Re:I wonder by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I actually figured it out the hard way (still cheated, used online resources to check e versus primes).

      The second puzzle, at that site, is really stumping me. If there is indeed a third, I don't stand a chance.

    4. Re:I wonder by ricotest · · Score: 1

      In addition, the billboards were up around July (this article is ridiculously delayed) so Google have probably stopped listening to responses now. They would have only paid attention the first few, who didn't have the ability to search the web for the answer ;)

    5. Re:I wonder by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Maybe the abuility to find answers on the net is exactly what google is looking for.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    6. Re:I wonder by Fizzog · · Score: 1

      I noticed one in downtown Seattle a couple of weeks ago. I don't get to that part of town very often so I don't know how long it had been up. It may still be there (2nd and Pine or Pike?).

      It was fairly obviously a recruitment exercise by someone, but I did the puzzles anyway just for fun.

  7. Good Thig I Overclocked my brain! by keeleysam · · Score: 0

    I computed all those units faster then anybody else! Ill definetely get the job!

    --
    Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
  8. More details on Google's Blog by GillBates0 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Accessible in their 07/01 archives

    Monday, July 12, 2004 Warning: We Brake For Number Theory
    If any Silicon Valley drivers have found that traffic is moving more slowly than usual these days on the southbound 101 right around Ralston, you may have us to blame. Last week we unveiled a billboard that's a bit unusual in that it promotes Google only to one very narrow constituency: engineers who are geeky enough to be annoyed at the very existence of a math problem they haven't solved, and smart enough to rectify the situation.

    Google Billboard

    In other words, the billboard (which offers problem-solvers the URL to, sorry, a page containing an even harder problem), is a recruiting campaign. We've always worked hard to hire the smartest engineers we can find, and we thought this would be a cool way to find a few more. Perhaps including you. If you're a math or computer whiz who doesn't happen to live within shouting distance of Palo Alto -- good luck, and we're looking forward to hearing from you.

    - A. Googler

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:More details on Google's Blog by Maagma · · Score: 2, Informative

      Direct Blog Post [google.com] link to Google's hiring campaign market thingy. Ya.

  9. Been done before. by rritterson · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is at least the second time google has done this. The first was on a billboard along US 101 in Silicon valley. /. may have covered it then, but I can't find the article so here is one from news.com (note that the caption to the picture if you read the NPR article also references the same billboard.)

    --
    -Ryan
    AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
    1. Re:Been done before. by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 1

      You'd think they could have come up with another problem before trying the same technique in another part of the country. After all, they have no shortage of smart people to think of cool math problems, right? It was rather disappointing to solve their first two problems only to (1) land on a publicly accessible page about how to apply for a job and (2) realize that the answers were already spammed all over the internet.

      Maybe they will give your resume extra consideration if you send in the code you write to solve the first two problems, but they didn't seem to think about saying that on their "congrats" page. At this point their signal-to-noise ratio probably sucks since they're just getting resumes from people that know how to use a search engine or read Slashdot.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
  10. This was posted before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't have the Slashdot link, but here's the linked-to article the last time around: (beware of Slashdot induced spaces in the url).

    http://news.com.com/Google+recruits+eggheads+wit h+ mystery+billboard/2100-1023_3-5263941.html?tag=nef d.pop 2004-07-13 10:33:02
    In a kind of geek "Jeopardy," the billboard read:"{first 10-digit prime found in consecutive digits e}.com." The answer, 7427466391.com, would lead a puzzle-sleuth to a Web page with yet another equation to solve, with still no sign the game was hosted by Google.

    Mastering that equation would lead someone to a page on Google Labs, the company's research and development department, which reads: "One thing we learned while building Google is that it's easier to find what you're looking for if it comes looking for you. What we're looking for are the best engineers in the world. And here you are.

    "As you can imagine, we get many, many resumes every day, so we developed this little process to increase the signal-to-noise ratio."

    1. Re:This was posted before... by Feyr · · Score: 1

      >host 7427466391.com
      7427466391.com A 216.239.53.184

      >whois 216.239.53.184

      OrgName: Google Inc.
      OrgID: GOGL
      Address: 2400 E. Bayshore Parkway
      City: Mountain View
      StateProv: CA
      PostalCode: 94043
      Country: US

      no sign? i don't think so :)

  11. Frustrating by ajs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I spent two days on the second puzzle (the number from e just leads you to a site with the real puzzle), only to realize that the answer was far, far simpler than I had been looking for. I think buildings two blocks down heard the "Doh!" ;-)

    A hint for those who want it...

    If you're searching through all of your number theory memories and reference texts for a solution, you've left the solution far behind.

    1. Re:Frustrating by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Also, the solution can be found with less than a minute of Googling.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    2. Re:Frustrating by ajs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BTW: ITA Software has some really good programming puzzles if you're looking for something that's a real challenge. If you're an admin, and you submit a resume for that job we send you a different, more ops-oriented puzzle that you might enjoy.

    3. Re:Frustrating by Council · · Score: 1

      Someone asked me to solve it without knowing what it was for. If I had solved the first one and gotten an idea of what I was looking for, I wouldn't have spent so long banging against the same brick wall you were.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    4. Re:Frustrating by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      For a good time, try Nick's Math Puzzles

      Or, try Perl Golf

    5. Re:Frustrating by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1

      find necessary and sufficient conditions for a graph to have a hamiltonian cycle.

      call back in 10 years.

    6. Re:Frustrating by mrtroy · · Score: 1

      thats a rather simple graph theory concept :)

      Taught to us in second year...

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
    7. Re:Frustrating by avitlanstroke · · Score: 0

      I didn't find it frustrating.. I'm a puny 14 year old, and I got it in an hour without cheating. Though I did follow the link to very end before I tried solving the puzzle.

    8. Re:Frustrating by nihilogos · · Score: 1

      Heh. Kudos for working it out. I just went to the online encyclopedia of integer sequences. My doh was probably just as loud though.

      --
      :wq
    9. Re:Frustrating by ajs · · Score: 1

      Well, that was kind of my point. It's far easier if you HAVEN'T been exposed to a lot of number theory, because you're not thinking in terms of all of the classic sorts of progressions. In a way they're screening for people who aren't as knowlegable.

  12. Is that a hard puzzle by gowen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... in the mathematical sense? It strikes me that it probably isn't, since the decimal expansion of e is base dependent, and most "interesting" properties of number are not, IMHO, dependent on the number of fingers our forefathers used for counting.

    Is there any method for the solution besides a brute force search and an efficient algorithm for primality testing?

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:Is that a hard puzzle by Sage+Gaspar · · Score: 1

      Mathematically interesting? It depends on who you ask. There are people who spend much of their free time just analyzing the number Pi for patterns, sequences, large primes, etc. These are dependent on the base as well. Doesn't really float my boat, personally, but it doesn't mean it's a trivial exercise using any method other than brute computation.

      Also, the second puzzle is, most definitely, not real mathematics. There are, literally, uncountably infinitely many non-trivial functions (i.e., not scalar multiples of each other) that satisfy those criterion, and any similar ones that you could come up with. It might be a test of being able to divine what your boss wants without them actually giving you any sort of directive, but it's not mathematics.

  13. Of course... by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...you could just google for the answer:

    7427466391

    Now, is that a better or worse answer than figuring it out yourself?

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:Of course... by glass_window · · Score: 1

      Or even more fun, use msn's web search!

    2. Re:Of course... by redherring22 · · Score: 2

      look at the source for 7427466391.com... lest you think google would give you some help in their comments, well, all you get is:

      <!-- no help here -->

    3. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used altavista.

  14. The answer... by vchoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Screw the answer...I just want the job @ colorful Google!!!

    1. Re:The Answer... by Eric119 · · Score: 1

      Er, your formula's munged. How about:

      e = lim n -> infinity (1 + 1/n)^n

    2. Re:The Answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's really slow! better to use taylor series. gets you ~nlog(n)-n digits after the n'th sum

    3. Re:The Answer... by Rebar · · Score: 1

      Damn, that's a slow algorithm. On the prime number checker page that is, not of your clever method of determining prime number candidates.

      I can suggest a couple code optimizations, if you are tempted to use their algorithm:
      (1) check only if odd numbers are divisors. if the number isn't divisible by 2, it won't be divisible by 4 either. Really you only have to check if prime numbers are divisors, but we don't have a handy pre-built list of those.
      (2) check up to the square root of the number only. If you haven't found a divisor by then, you aren't going to find one.

      As it is, you can enter a number like 12345678901147 and it will pretty much lock your computer up (mozilla asks if you want to cancel because it is taking so long).

      Change the line
      for (var i=2;i<num;i++) {
      to
      for (var i=2;i*i<=num;i+=(i>2?2:1)) {
      and that page just springs to life on larger primes... like... 7427466391 for instance.

      Note: I am not a mathmatician. I can't even spell it. I'm pretty sure I am right however.

  15. Are you trolling? by mfh · · Score: 4, Funny

    The URL was really 1828675309.com
    That's not resolving and I think I know why...

    Jenny, I got your number
    I need to make you mine
    Jenny, don't change your number
    8675309 (8675309)
    8675309 (8675309)

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Are you trolling? by da3dAlus · · Score: 1, Funny

      I've always wondered, where's the "niii-eee-iiine" key? I can't dial the number correctly without it!

      --

      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    2. Re:Are you trolling? by starbuzz · · Score: 1

      Jenny, don't change your number

      Nope. That's not the reason. Rather, the number is not prime, and I doubt it occurs in e anyway.

      linux ~> factor 1828675309
      1828675309: 37 251 196907
    3. Re:Are you trolling? by LordIvan · · Score: 1

      Nope. That's not the reason. Rather, the number is not prime, and I doubt it occurs in e anyway.

      actually, considering that e is an infinite sequence and all, I suspect there's better than even odds that it does occur somewhere in there...

    4. Re:Are you trolling? by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      actually, considering that e is an infinite sequence and all, I suspect there's better than even odds that it does occur somewhere in there...

      Especially if you buy into the whole "all data of civilization is stored in pi/e/<random possibly infinite number here>" claptrap. I mean come on. he posted it to slashdot, it better be in there if all the knowledge of the human race is in there.

    5. Re:Are you trolling? by HybridJeff · · Score: 1

      sounds like Contact (the book version not the movie) where the alien society was tring to decode a message encoded in the digits of pi in the same manor that the people on earth were decoding the message from within a tv broadcast

  16. The Answer by chendo · · Score: 1
    --
    Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
    1. Re:The Answer by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I saw this on Google Blog a few weeks ago and decided to try it out. Like nearly every problem I encounter, I also check Google for a solution and came up with it right quick. So I'm a little surprised it took so long to make it onto Slashdot.

      Anyway, I guess I wasn't paying that close of attention during the IPO thing -

      From the Wikipedia article: "In the IPO filing for Google, Inc., in 2004, rather than a typical round-number amount of money, the company announced its intention to raise $2,718,281,828, which is, of course, e billion dollars to the nearest integer."

    2. Re:The Answer by sayerofno · · Score: 1

      They should have shot for pi billion dollars to the nearest integer...they'd have raised more money that way. ;) I always liked pi better than e anyhow.

    3. Re:The Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how did you get that?

    4. Re:The Answer by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      the company announced its intention to raise $2,718,281,828

      Somebody at Google really likes e.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    5. Re:The Answer by neoThoth · · Score: 1

      No kidding I read about this in the Boston Globe *last week*. It's a pretty nice hiring strategy although I was confused about placement. In cambridge there are two major universities on the Red line, Kendall (MIT) and Harvard (uh Harvard). This huge banner appeard at the Harvard stop... why wouldn't they go after the guys from MIT??

    6. Re:The Answer by curtoid · · Score: 1

      the company announced its intention to raise $2,718,281,828 .. Somebody at Google really likes e.

      Maybe e likes them.... e likes them aloht (sic).

    7. Re:the answer by Lonath · · Score: 1

      Of course, we DO all know that you can't really tell what the (N+1)st term of a sequence is by looking at the first N terms right? And wouldn't it be interesting if there was another less obvious interpretation of those numbers that sent you to another website where the real applications are supposed to go? I don't have time to think about this this afternoon, but I will probably look at it later tonight. If there's another less obvious answer that someone finds that works, I will be really impressed.

    8. Re:The Answer by Myrrh · · Score: 1

      'Cause the guys at MIT have more important problems to solve, namely inventing robotic girlfriends to take to the prom.

    9. Re:The Answer by Tancred · · Score: 1

      Also, at their previous campus, they numbered their buildings 0, e and pi.

  17. old.... by grendel_x86 · · Score: 1

    They are still doing this? I thought they pulled those 6mo ago. The answers are all over the internet.

    The first one leads to a url, second to another, and that gives you a pin# to submit your resume w/.

    --
    Im glad /. isnt the real world, that would really suck..
  18. I'm a Cheater by Smuj · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm lazy, so I just Googled the answer.

    1. Re:I'm a Cheater by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You're not a cheater, you're an engineer. You found a fast, accurate, correct answer to the problem.

      Scientists will now tell you how you don't really understand the problem.

      Mathematicians will quickly follow that you could never understand the problem.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  19. I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by not_a_product_id · · Score: 4, Interesting
    {first 10-digit prime found in consecutive digits of e}.com

    In case you're wondering -- or forgot -- e is the base of the natural system of logarithms, having a numerical value of about 2.71828 (though the number goes on forever).


    Get file with copy of prime numbers. Get file with copy of largest precision of e. Use perl to scan for all 10 digit primes and then look for the first one in e.

    Profit


    or am I missing something?

    --

    ---
    We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience

    1. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by samhalliday · · Score: 5, Funny
      or am I missing something?

      yes, the answer...

    2. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The best method I've seen is taking e and use DNS to find the look for domains that resolve: see http://use.perl.org/~davorg/journal/19837

    3. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by karmatic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, your missing something.

      Pseudocode:
      e = [large precision e, perhaps as a string];
      // Actually, it doesn't have to be that large

      for ( int i = 0; i < strlen ( e ); i++ )
      if ( is_prime ( substr ( e, i, 10 ) ) )
      // here is your answer

    4. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by supercytro · · Score: 1

      Or even better, get file with larget precision of e (or compute it yourself). Iterate through 10 digit consecutive numbers in e and check if it is prime.

    5. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by Tenareth · · Score: 1

      Yes, the ability to do it in your head...

      --
      This sig is the express property of someone.
    6. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by dema · · Score: 0

      You're still missing the second answer :D

    7. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by tgd · · Score: 1

      Thats precisely what I did. Total time including googling for a million digits of e (massive overkill, its in the first couple hundred, iirc) and a list of primes, plus writing the perl script was about fifteen minutes.

      The second question was even easier, but I'd seen a problem in that vein in an IQ test or something when I was a kid, and being a total moron when it comes to math, it was the first thing I tried.

      20 minutes to solve both, just to get to teh damn google jobs page, a job I wouldn't want.

      Oh well.

    8. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by Plutor · · Score: 1

      I'd just like to point out that a file with the primes up to 9999999999 is going to be somewhere on the order of pi(10^10) * 11 bytes = 5005577621 bytes = 4.6 gigs. That's a big file to read into memory and then search through for every single ten-digit substring of e.

      It'd be far easier to get a list of the primes up to 100,000 (or sqrt(10^10)), and then take each ten-digit substring and perform the Sieve of Eratosthenes on each one. A _lot_ less memory use, and modulo division is (relatively) cheap.

    9. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by Transient0 · · Score: 1

      i see where you're going with the DNS thing, but how is being on MDMA going to help you any?

    10. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by Chatterton · · Score: 4, Informative

      For your reference :)
      The fisrt 10 000 digits :P

      2.7182818284590452353602874713526624977572470936 99 95957496696762772407663035354759457138217852516642 74274663919320030599218174135966290435729003342952 60595630738132328627943490763233829880753195251019 01157383418793070215408914993488416750924476146066 80822648001684774118537423454424371075390777449920 69551702761838606261331384583000752044933826560297 60673711320070932870912744374704723069697720931014 16928368190255151086574637721112523897844250569536 96770785449969967946864454905987931636889230098793 12773617821542499922957635148220826989519366803318 25288693984964651058209392398294887933203625094431 17301238197068416140397019837679320683282376464804 29531180232878250981945581530175671736133206981125 09961818815930416903515988885193458072738667385894 22879228499892086805825749279610484198444363463244 96848756023362482704197862320900216099023530436994 18491463140934317381436405462531520961836908887070 16768396424378140592714563549061303107208510383750 51011574770417189861068739696552126715468895703503 54021234078498193343210681701210056278802351930332 24745015853904730419957777093503660416997329725088 68769664035557071622684471625607988265178713419512 46652010305921236677194325278675398558944896970964 09754591856956380236370162112047742722836489613422 51644507818244235294863637214174023889344124796357 43702637552944483379980161254922785092577825620926 22648326277933386566481627725164019105900491644998 28931505660472580277863186415519565324425869829469 59308019152987211725563475463964479101459040905862 98496791287406870504895858671747985466775757320568 12884592054133405392200011378630094556068816674001 69842055804033637953764520304024322566135278369511 77883863874439662532249850654995886234281899707733 27617178392803494650143455889707194258639877275471 09629537415211151368350627526023264847287039207643 10059584116612054529703023647254929666938115137322 75364509888903136020572481765851180630364428123149 65507047510254465011727211555194866850800368532281 83152196003735625279449515828418829478761085263981 39559900673764829224437528718462457803619298197139 91475644882626039033814418232625150974827987779964 37308997038886778227138360577297882412561190717663 94650706330452795466185509666618566470971134447401 60704626215680717481877844371436988218559670959102 59686200235371858874856965220005031173439207321139 08032936344797273559552773490717837934216370120500 54513263835440001863239914907054797780566978533580 48966906295119432473099587655236812859041383241160 72260299833053537087613893963917795745401613722361 87893652605381558415871869255386061647798340254351 28439612946035291332594279490433729908573158029095 86313826832914771163963370924003168945863606064584 59251269946557248391865642097526850823075442545993 76917041977780085362730941710163434907696423722294 35236612557250881477922315197477806056967253801718 07763603462459278778465850656050780844211529697521 8908740196

    11. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by cjpez · · Score: 1
      Get file with copy of prime numbers... or am I missing something?
      There's a *hell* of a lot of 10-digit primes. You're actually just better off running through the digits of e and checking each one mathematically. My little perl script managed to get the answer that way in 0m0.190s according to bash (only 0m0.100s CPU time, too), and that's just using the standard "factor" util to do the actual math.
    12. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by harrkev · · Score: 1
      if ( is_prime ( substr ( e, i, 10 ) ) )

      Not quite that easy. 2^32 is indeed a 10-digit number, but the first digit is a "4". So unless the prime in question is approximately 4.2 billion or lower, 32-bit integer arithmetic will not help. You will either have to go a larger integer size (assuming that you have an Athon 64), or find a library which handles arbitrary-precision math (or write your own library, no fun).
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    13. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use perl to scan for all 10 digit primes and then look for the first one in e.

      or am I missing something?


      Yes. It's supposed to be done in Python.

    14. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Get file with copy of prime numbers. ...all of them?

    15. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by sparks · · Score: 1

      Or...

      use bigint;

      Then "bobsyouruncle".

      We're doing this in perl, right? :)

      Andrew

    16. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by Bullseye_blam · · Score: 1

      Yeah, also missing the fact that this is the first problem of two problems - the second one being a bit tougher.

      -Bullseye

    17. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by SimHacker · · Score: 1

      "Use perl to scan for all 10 digit primes and then look for the first one in e." [...] "or am I missing something?"

      Yes, if you're using Perl by choice, you most certainly are missing something.

      You will probably fail the job interview, because when you tell the people at Google that you used Perl by choice, instead of any of the other much more reasonable, cooler and pleasurable alternatives, they will laugh at you.

      Seriously: the last job interview I was at, we were talking about programming languages, and they mentioned Perl. I winced and said something mildly disparaging but restrained. One of the guys interviewing me cheered "He doesn't like Perl! Hire him!" So I told them: don't get me started about how bad Perl is, but they definitely shouldn't hire me just because I think Perl sucks. I'd use it if I ever had to, but I've never run across a situation where there wasn't a much better alternative. Then I managed to steer the conversation out of that particular rat hold and back to talking about Python. I got the job!

      -Don

      --
      Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
    18. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by bnenning · · Score: 1

      It'd be far easier to get a list of the primes up to 100,000 (or sqrt(10^10)), and then take each ten-digit substring and perform the Sieve of Eratosthenes on each one.

      And easier still to use java.math.BigInteger.isProbablePrime().

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    19. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by karmatic · · Score: 1

      It's pseudocode! Let's define is_prime as a function, taking a string as an imput, and using GMP or some other arbitrary precision library to run the number through sieves to determine if it's prime.

      The job was to explain, not to give actual code. Hence, the pseudocode comment.

    20. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by eyeye · · Score: 1

      You forgot to attach code to back up your "reasonable, cooler and pleasurable alternatives".

      Or are you just another person who doesnt understand Perl.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    21. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1
      I haven't spent enough time doing maths, so I still consider myself lacking in those skills. Looking around the net I came across this defintion, but I am unsure how to go about calculating e using the Mecator series for the following method, in Java:
      public static double calcE ( double x ) {
      x=x+1;
      double n = x;
      for ( int i=0; i<20; i++ ) {
      double m = Math.pow(x,(double)i+1)/(i+1);
      m = m* Math.pow( -1.0,(double)i);
      n = n + m;
      }
      return n;
      }
      It does not work. I am really not sure what the right approach would be to calculate e to precision n.

      Anybody got something to share - either your own work, or something copied and pasted from elsewhere?
      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    22. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by Cryogenes · · Score: 1

      The file with the prime numbers would be quite big - several gigabytes.

      So here is a better way. Stirling's rule tells you that the chance of a random 10-digit number being prime is about 1 in 30. So, find a site with a few hundred digits of e and just check the first few dozen subsequences of length 10, using an online primality checker like http://www.2357.a-tu.net/index.php?link=Primality

      This way you find the answer in five minutes using nothing but your browser. And no cheating either.

    23. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      Use perl to scan for all 10 digit primes and then look for the first one in e

      I don't know what size projects you've worked on but brute force (while it might work here, eventually) isn't a very elegant or quickly repeatable solution. There are a couple of tricks you can use to reduce the number of possible 10 digit primes in e. For example, look to e as the source of test cases, not all 10 digit primes. Use some quick common sense: test cases ending in 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 aren't going to be prime... stuff like that. Enjoy!

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    24. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Turns out that I have better luck getting an answer using the defintion of the notes of this page. The only problem is that factorial reaches infinity too fast when using double - this is for an input value somewhere between 150 and 175. There must be a better way to calculate the precision to n decimal places.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    25. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Get file with copy of prime numbers. Get file with copy of largest precision of e.

      Both are infinite.

      Well, the former, if restricted to ten digit primes, will be finite, though large, but the latter will be extremely large (though you can assume it's within a reasonable range of e).

      It's simpler, if you want to approach this programatically, to do something like
      string digits = "2718282818"; while (true) {
      if (is_prime(atoi(digits))) break;
      digits += calculate_another_digit_of_e();
      digits.delete(0);
      }
      There are several "this-isn't-prime" tests that are quicker than an absolute determination as a first step, so it won't take as long as you think. You only have to fully determine primeness if all the not-prime tests are inconclusive.

    26. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by Disco+Stu · · Score: 1

      dude, you rock

    27. Re:I'm a bit of a maths dunce but by SimHacker · · Score: 1
      Oh, come on kiddo. I've known Perl since the 80's. When did you first start using Perl?

      If you don't realize that Perl sucks, then you don't understand it yourself.

      Want to read some reasonable, cool, pleasurable Python code?

      Zope: http://www.zope.org

      Plone: http://www.plone.org

      -Don

      --
      Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  20. Interesting by meganthom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Personally, I like this approach. Maybe the problem isn't extraordinarily difficult to solve, but the ad itself has a useful purpose for Google's HR department: it finds people who are willing to solve a problem whose solution is not immediately obvious without any immediate gain, other than satisfying their curiosity. That has to be a nice plus for Google. They can limit their hiring process to those individuals and from there give them more challenging problems, take them through the interview process, etc.

    --
    Live free or die
    1. Re:Interesting by Dr.+Winston+O'Boogie · · Score: 1

      Sure, it serves as a very useful recruiting tool. They will find the people willing to spend time and effort on an arbitrary problem in the vague hopes of landing a job. So when you dangle a real paycheck in front of them, there is no end to what hoops you can make them jump through.

      Personally, I think "brainy" people should be smarter than to want to play these sorts of games.

    2. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A friend in the industry claims that these aren't actually an HR department thing, but a marketing thing. Google doesn't hire much and the point is to make it look like they have only clever people etc. Try calling up and finding out exactly who you are talking to, which department they work in and which department that one belongs to.

      Needless to say they couldn't even bother to have a machine acknowledge my existence when I sent my resume in.

    3. Re:Interesting by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      but the ad itself has a useful purpose for Google's HR department: it finds people who are willing to solve a problem whose solution is not immediately obvious without any immediate gain, other than satisfying their curiosity.

      But it may result in people who do things the hard way when a more straitforward approach would be appropriate just because they are bored of the "normal" way. They may use fractal recursive hypermatrixes that normalize to a gravity-induced string-theory hyperspace when A-times-B would have done it. Think I am exaggerating? You wouldn't believe the things people try to do with XML when bored.

    4. Re:Interesting by CrkHead · · Score: 1

      For the last couple months Google has done similar ads in the Mensa publication. I think it speaks well of the company that they try to weed out candidates by testing problem solving rather than by who has the prettiest resume.

    5. Re:Interesting by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is, and I'm probably repeating something already mentioned, you can just get the solutions by using Google to search for the answers. It's quite easy. Funny, too, since the path of least resistance is to just use their tool and look up the answers.

      Incidentally, most of the answers I've seen just involve some classic cleverness and, again, searching on Google for components and stitching them together into a simple program.

      If Google wants to hire me because I'm lazy enough to use Google to find the answer to anything, so be it.

    6. Re:Interesting by Zaak · · Score: 1

      ...you can just get the solutions by using Google to search for the answers.

      But, could you use Google to search for the answers before anyone else solved the problems?

      In other words, only the first few applicants using this process are worth anything.

      TTFN

    7. Re:Interesting by H*(BZ_2)-Module · · Score: 1

      The NSA has been doing this for years with advertisements in Notices of the American Mathematical Society. The problems were never really explicit though. They would just show you a picture, and then say something like "intrigued?, then contact the NSA...".
      One of the problems I remember was balancing uniform blocks on a ledge. If you have one block, you can extend it over the ledge 1/2 of its length without falling. For two identical blocks, you can stack them and extend the blocks out 1/2 + 1/4. If you have three, then it is 1/2+1/4+1/6. For four blocks, you have to stack them in layers of 1, then 2, then 1; so you have a stack only three blocks high. You end up with 1 - 1/(2*Sqrt[2]) + 7/8 - 1/(2*Sqrt[2]). All of this was shown in a picture and the obvious problem is left unstated: find a method of determining the greatest distance that n blocks can be extended over the ledge.

    8. Re:Interesting by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      True, but in the time it takes one good candidate to complete the problem and post solutions online, another good candidate may not have even seen the problem.

      Granted, if you only want a couple of applications, then you can ignore this factor -- as well as ignoring all but the first few responses.

  21. Just Google for the answer! by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember kids, you don't have to KNOW anything any more. This is the age of the search engine.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    1. Re:Just Google for the answer! by Threni · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > Remember kids, you don't have to KNOW anything any more. This is the age of the
      > search engine.

      You never had to "know" anything, it's just that it was easier/cheaper/quicker to know something, or employ someone who knew, than it was to look it up. This is increasingly no longer true.

    2. Re:Just Google for the answer! by rbolkey · · Score: 1

      This was the complaint of my professor for Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science. Hey, look, they all have the same correct answer, and came to it by the same method, and it matches the solution posted for another class at a different school.

    3. Re:Just Google for the answer! by Yaztromo · · Score: 1
      Remember kids, you don't have to KNOW anything any more. This is the age of the search engine.

      Well, I decided I was going to solve the puzzle just for fun, but for the life of me I can't remember e past about 9 digits. So I decided to search on Google for either an equation for generating the digits of e (which would be preferable in this case to something that calculates e itself), or for a relatively large pre-computed value of e.

      Unfortunately, just searching for either of these items on Google brings up a couple of solutions specific to Googles puzzle within the first ten hits, and that just sucks all of the pleasure out of the whole excersize.

      I try to console myself through the realization that I probably don't have time to play with these puzzles at the moment anyhow :P.

      Yaz.

    4. Re:Just Google for the answer! by HeyLaughingBoy · · Score: 1
      You never had to "know" anything

      As the answers get easier to find, it becomes increasingly more important to employ/be the person who knows what question to ask!
  22. aaah by gowen · · Score: 3, Funny
    I hate "what is the next number in the sequence" type puzzles. The correct answer is always the same.
    Anything I damn well like. I understand polynomial interpolation
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:aaah by ajs · · Score: 1

      Which, if you solved the problem AND submitted that answer (to prove that you could solve it, but consider it silly), might just land you the interview.

      What I didn't realize going in is that this is not a contest, it's an ad. I thought I was solving a puzzle that Google considered hard, and that's why it took me so long: I was looking for hard answers. It turns out that this is just a device for getting smart people to look at Google's Web site.

    2. Re:aaah by BillyBlaze · · Score: 4, Informative

      He's wrong anyway. Just because any number is a possibility doesn't mean it's the one they're looking for. You have to find a pattern. In this case, the pattern is f(n) = the nth 10-digit block of the digits of e whose digits add up to 49. f(5) is 5966290435. The linux.org login no longer works. And of course, I figured all that out with Google.

    3. Re:aaah by jCaT · · Score: 1

      I hate "what is the next number in the sequence" type puzzles. The correct answer is always the same.
      Anything I damn well like. I understand polynomial interpolation


      <hint>
      That's good, because you don't need polynomial interpolation. I spent a couple hours trying to make it work, no dice. The answer is MUCH MUCH simpler than that.
      </hint>

    4. Re:aaah by gowen · · Score: 1

      I can *always* "solve" these problems with polynomial interpolation, and get any answer I care for. At the end of the process I've found a pattern and deduced the next term. If it's not the same pattern google were looking for ... they should write less ambiguous / idiotic questions.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    5. Re:aaah by jCaT · · Score: 1
      Actually, you can't solve this problem with polynomial interpolation because it's not a polynomial interpolation problem. This is not a classical polynomial function. As I said, the answer is much simpler. The position of the next term in the list CANNOT be derived from the previous terms.

      The point of the "idiotic" question is that people can spend a lot of time (in my case two hours) working on completely the wrong solution (which may seem obvious) when the TRUE solution is much simpler. This is a classic "think outside the box" problem.

      That being said, I did find this really cool page while trying to figure out the next number in the series.. The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. You give it a piece of a sequence and it finds integer sequences that match the pattern. Very cool.

      P.S.- if you want to know, here's a hint, rot13'd:
      fhz gur qvtvgf bs rnpu ahzore gbtrgure
    6. Re:aaah by gowen · · Score: 1
      This is not a classical polynomial function.
      Oh yeah? Care to evaluate
      f(x) = 7195272385 - 2002869909 z / 2 + 1230350850 z^2 - 482739993 z^3 / 2
      when z = 1, 2, 3 and 4?

      So f(5) = 2775619300. Now, why is that not a perfectly reasonable solution to this "puzzle"?
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    7. Re:aaah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen. I hate those stupid problems too, and for that reason.

    8. Re:aaah by jCaT · · Score: 1
      Ok, I see... I thought you had gotten as far as seeing what the numbers were- items in the list of 10-digit numbers taken from the first 10,000 digits of e. But, if you didn't solve the first problem yourself, then I can see how that would not be obvious.

      here:
      <b>7182818284</b>
      1828182845
      8281828459
      2818284 590
      <b>8182845904</b>
      1828459045
      8284590452
      28 45904523
      8459045235
      4590452353
      [...etc...]

      It's not a classical polynomial function because it's not a function at all. The next number in the list is only related to the previous numbers in the list by a certain property that all the numbers share. There is no way to generate the entire series by just knowing previous elements in the series. The series is a certain set of numbers within the set of ten-digit numbers contained in the digits of e. Check out the
      hint posted in my previous reply.
    9. Re:aaah by gowen · · Score: 1
      But, if you didn't solve the first problem yourself, then I can see how that would not be obvious.
      Why must the problems be related. In the second problem. all I'm told about the function f(x) is that it takes certain values at 1, 2, 3 and 4.

      Well, there are an infinite number of functions that take those values. (Hell, there are an infinite number of polynomials that do). My function satisfies all the constraints on f, but its not the answer google are looking for. That's why, as stated, it's an idiotic puzzle
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    10. Re:aaah by bnenning · · Score: 1

      In this case, the pattern is f(n) = the nth 10-digit block of the digits of e whose digits add up to 49. f(5) is 5966290435.

      Dammit, I would have figured that out eventually. No really. It didn't help that the indexes of the first 4 are 1, 5, 23, and 99, which is *almost* a multiply-by-4-and-add-something sequence.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    11. Re:aaah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It did for me :)

    12. Re:aaah by Rope_a_Dope · · Score: 1

      No doubt that is correct (assuming x = z).

    13. Re:aaah by RcktMan77 · · Score: 1

      Why do the ten consecutive digits of e have to add up to 49, and where was this part stated in the problem? Thanks.

    14. Re:aaah by Jerf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you, and the thread stretching out from your post, are missing the point. The point is not the with polynomial interpolation, gowen can get "the answer". His point is that you can reasonably get any answer.

      The set of functions is uncountably infinite. There are uncountably infinite functions that have f of 1, 2, 3, and 4 set to the values Google gave. The reality is that mathematically speaking, giving four numbers results in exactly no constraint on the next number; you might as well just pick one at random. "Polynomial interpolation" is one reasonable path to this, but remember that functions need not even be continuous and are ultimately just infinite look-up tables. (Note the final "solution" is just a lookup table-type function.)

      To counter the obvious next objection ("well obviously it is going to be a human-meaningful number"), I take my objection one meta. Obviously we're not truly drawing from that infinite set of functions. However, there's still an effectively infinite set of "human meaningful functions", too. So the true challenge becomes not a math problem, but in sheer guessing which exact constraints the puzzle writer chose.

      This is not a mathematical problem. It tries to pretend to be one, but it is not. Generally, once you know the constraints the solution is trivial.

      The correct mathematical answer to all such sequences remains "The next number is whatever the hell it feels like being". I have better things to do with my time then try to second-guess somebody pretending to be clever and plucking some random thing out of the uncountably infinite set and demanding that I guess it. Thus, I don't do these puzzles; they're sophmoric in the literal sense of the term, created by people who think they are clever but don't seem to have a deep understanding of math.

      People who "solve" the puzzle may impress Google, but I am not impressed by Google using this as a puzzle.

    15. Re:aaah by ghettoboy22 · · Score: 1

      the login still works... just tried it.

    16. Re:aaah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The answer to the second problem is exactly the same solution as the first. Just script the login with consecutive 10 digits of e unitl you get in.

    17. Re:aaah by Eric119 · · Score: 1

      It's not a classical polynomial function because it's not a function at all. The next number in the list is only related to the previous numbers in the list by a certain property that all the numbers share. There is no way to generate the entire series by just knowing previous elements in the series.

      Actually, it most certainly is a function (a mapping from one set onto another). It's just not possible to know what it is, because they are infinitely many functions that have those four specific values. I could just say f(5) = 42, and there'd still be infinitely many functions. Sequence problems cannot be solved within mathematics. E.g., if you know f(1) = 1, f(2) = 3, f(3) = 5, f(4) = 7, and f(5) = 9, what is f(6)? Maybe it's 11, but nothing guarantees it.

    18. Re:aaah by pkhuong · · Score: 1

      Because it fits with the other numbers.

      --
      Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
    19. Re:aaah by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      You must be an engineer.

      Just because you can use some method to come up with some answer doesn't magically make it the right one.

    20. Re:aaah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the answer is "correct" it is "right".

    21. Re:aaah by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      This statement doesn't change anything. Correct and right mean the same thing. The problem is that just because some answer is justifiable doesn't mean it's correct... or right.

      Take the example given in the Google problem, of figuring out what comes next in a sequence of numbers. Say the sequence is 1, 2, 6, 24, 120. If you think about it, you can figure out the next number in the sequence. But polynomial fits aren't going to get you the solution. If I fit it to, say, a 4th order polynomial and determine that the next item is 410, that doesn't make me right.

      You see it a lot in physics classes (which I've taught). People will come up with the most incorrect answers possible to a question by applying an invalid method. Then they'll say, "But F=ma, right? That's what I used." Then you say, "Yes, but that equation has nothing to do with the problem at hand, so using it can't possibly get you the right answer except by luck." Then they cry.

    22. Re:aaah by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      In case anyone's clever and cares, I might as well mention that my example isn't particularly good, since factorial is still a function (well, gamma is a function; same thing) and so it has some polynomial representation, albeit without a finite number of terms. Arbitrary polynomial fitting still isn't going to get you the right answer. The Google problem is better because it's not a mathmatical function, so there's no way to properly justify fitting to it and extracting some answer.

    23. Re:aaah by Inspector+Lopez · · Score: 2, Interesting
      jerf remarks:

      This is not a mathematical problem. It tries to pretend to be one, but it is not. Generally, once you know the constraints the solution is trivial.

      The correct mathematical answer to all such sequences remains "The next number is whatever the hell it feels like being". I have better things to do with my time then try to second-guess somebody pretending to be clever and plucking some random thing out of the uncountably infinite set and demanding that I guess it. Thus, I don't do these puzzles; they're sophmoric in the literal sense of the term, created by people who think they are clever but don't seem to have a deep understanding of math.

      People who "solve" the puzzle may impress Google, but I am not impressed by Google using this as a puzzle.


      On the other hand, did Google ever claim that this was a math problem? It is a problem, sure, but it is obviously not a request for a proof of Goldbach's conjecture. Jerf critiques the problem as "sophomoric" but I think that Jerf's complaint is "beating up a strawman" --- he claims that Google posed a math problem and then declares the problem stupid. It is a stupid math problem ... but it's a fun stupid problem.

      And, after all, there is a specific set of correct answers, which are perfectly apparent to those who solve the suggested problems --- because they lead to recognition by somebody, perhaps Google --- of particular, quite reasonable answers. If you type in random responses, you're just incredibly unlikely to stumble into the "honeypot."

      So (blush, gloat) I have to admit enjoying 45 minutes in the solution of the problems, when I should have been doing what I'm actually supposed to be doing. If only for providing me with 45 minutes of fun, I'm grateful for the problem --- math problem or no.

      The quasi-mathematical nature of the problems requires one to either "cheat" by invoking search engines (which, as some have pointed out, may be a perfectly valid solution method as far as Google is concerned), or to demonstrate familiarity with computer tools that facilitate the discovery of the answers.

      The very first problem is quite well posed, and if you can figure out how to generate the ten digit numbers, you don't have to look very far. A subsequent problem is very ill-posed (as jerf points out), but nevertheless a "human" is capable of inferring a kind of pattern with far less information than a "mathematician" would consider acceptable. Surely this is precisely the sort of thing that we hope search engines will do for us.

      It was fun. Probably Google isn't going to offer me a job, but I had fun. Is that so bad?
    24. Re:aaah by gowen · · Score: 1
      Arbitrary polynomial fitting still isn't going to get you the right answer
      There isn't a right answer. That my point. Give me a finite number of data points and I'll fit a function to it. It may not be the same one you fit to it, but until you come up with a criterion that makes yours right and mine wrong, mines just as good as yours, or google's.
      it has some polynomial representation, albeit without a finite number of terms
      Polynomials always have a finite number of terms. That's the definition of a polynomial.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    25. Re:aaah by pez · · Score: 1

      Well said. If I only had a mod point to give....

    26. Re:aaah by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Of course there's a right answer. And they have a criterion that makes your answer wrong and theirs right, they just didn't tell you what it is. Just because they don't tell you doesn't eliminate the criterion.

      You don't even need polynomial fitting to come up with an answer by your logic. Just pick any arbitrary number, and it must be right, because you didn't specify a criterion that says it isn't! Yes, yes, that makes perfect sense... I'm sure many people will agree with you.

      Also, the expansion for factorial contains an infinite number of polynomial terms and e^x, which is also expressable as a sum of an infinite number of polynomial terms. Whether or not that counts as a polynomial is up to you. But factorial cannot be fit exactly by any finite number of polynomial terms (an most regression software prefers not to fit above 10th order).

    27. Re:aaah by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
      He's wrong anyway.
      No, he's right. The puzzle is equivalent to, "I'm thinking of a number. What is it?" Dumb. It's not problem solving, it's just persistently guessing until you stumble upon whatever they have in mind. Sure, they give you some hints or make use some kind of simple math to generate the answer, so your guessing space is limited and weighted, but it's still a guessing game. Problems that have objective functional solutions are much more interesting.
    28. Re:aaah by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
      It's still just a guessing game. They could pick a number from 1 to 10 and ask you to guess it; one person in 10 would get it on the first try. Or maybe their favorite number is 6 and they gave a hint to that effect, so one person in 3 would get it on the first try. Are those people good problem solvers? Not really, unless the problem is anticipating the whims of others. Maybe that's what the Google guys are looking for, someone who can always tell them what they want to hear.

      Good puzzles have objective solutions; any answer that meets the requirements inherent in the question is correct, and can be verified correct independently.

    29. Re:aaah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For finitely many values x in the domain, choose corresponding coordinates y. It is then possible to construct a polynomial passing through the points (x,y) by an argument going back at least to Lagrange (Lagrange Interpolation). I discovered a means of finding the needed coefficients using matrices in high school, although Lagrange can give you the coefficients more directly. Fun math challenge: figure out how to do it the matrix way :-)

    30. Re:aaah by Inspector+Lopez · · Score: 1
      It's still just a guessing game. They could pick a number from 1 to 10 and ask you to guess it; one person in 10 would get it on the first try. Or maybe their favorite number is 6 and they gave a hint to that effect, so one person in 3 would get it on the first try.

      Forgive me, but Google's puzzles were not at all "guessing games." The first (billboard) problem was completely well-posed. The second problem required some thought to find some sort of pattern or progression that four numbers satisfied, so that a fifth might be identified. Although the answer has been given, I'll still be coy and say that these numbers had the same hash value (calculated a certain, reasonable way); they were the first four numbers to achieve that hash, and the answer was the fifth available with that hash.

      Good puzzles have objective solutions; any answer that meets the requirements inherent in the question is correct, and can be verified correct independently.

      I agree. Remember, the first problem was completely well-posed.

      The second problem was not well posed mathematically, but the pattern is very simple --- so simple that, in the Occam's Razor sense, I would be amazed if there is a second, equally simple rule, which leads to a valid (but incorrect) answer.

      By analogy, many inverse problems are very ill-posed. The usual way to resolve them is by "regularization" which can be thought of as "make the answer sort of smooth" or with a bit more fancy talk, you use a Maximum Entropy constraint to restrict the choice of possible models. There are some very potent arguments in favor of Maximum Entropy as a rationale; and it is not so bizarre to assert that "Maximum Entropy" and "Occam's Razor" are, in fact, kin. Each basically suggests, "choose the simplest model which explains the available facts." If you follow this logic you will be led inexorably to the solutions which Google had in mind. Whether you call it Occam's Razor or Maximum Entropy, the answers really are effectively unique.

      To assert otherwise is to defend solutions which are correct with probability zero. After all, we're talking about 10 digit sequences of a transcendental number; a "technically correct" but "google-y wrong" solution to the second problem has probability 1 part in 10^10. For the first problem, I claim there is exactly one solution.
    31. Re:aaah by circusboy · · Score: 1

      too true, having a lot of spare time on my hands of late, I actually came up with three or four different answers.

      It would have been nice if perhaps they had had a few possible responses,

      other answers for the curious, based on the positions of the chosen 10 digits,
      2,6,24,100...

      for those who noticed that the middle numbers of the binomial expansion triangle, (multiplied successively by 2,3,4,5,6...) the fifth term is 420 which finds you the sequence 5746377211 [ given the other significance of that number, 420 that is, perhaps I should have seen it as unlikely...]

      then there's the binomial theorem which, via a rather unwieldy cubic equation, gets you the 278th term (I was actually thinking that there was some good, if obscure, humor there, 278 ->2.71828... ha-ha... maybe not)
      which was 4424371075

      for fun I actually did a search on that sequence, "2, 6, 24, 100" and got a russian website that had that sequence with one further term,197 which for fun gave me 0190115738

      having eventually found all the various information after the fact, I was rather dissapointed to see that the number they had chosen was not 42. I must admit to feeling a bit foolish, having spent all that time on the "wrong" part of the puzzle, and though I may have gotten the 'wrong' answer, I think I got a couple of good ones. what the hell...

      I suppose having lived in SF, 7 squared should have leapt out at me. (San Francisco is 7mi.x7mi. for those who don't know.)

      oh well, I guess I'm "not feeling lucky..." on the other hand it was a neat little exercise.

      cheers!

      --
      -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
  23. E A S Y by StevenHenderson · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Easy solution:

    Use Google to find the solution to Google's puzzle.

    Guess they just want people who know how to use a search engine. :)

    1. Re:E A S Y by Surt · · Score: 1

      Try searching for just billboard puzzle answer, it's much less obvious.

      Plus those billboards have been up for long enough that google has probably stopped accepting submissions by now. They want the people who could solve it before it got documented.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  24. Hmmm. I went to 42.com... by jbarr · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and it just displays some guy's resume. Maybe 42 isn't the answer after all!

    --
    My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    1. Re:Hmmm. I went to 42.com... by vr · · Score: 1

      And it's even exported from Microsoft Word! 42 is definetly not the answer!

    2. Re:Hmmm. I went to 42.com... by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 4, Funny
      Maybe 42 isn't the answer after all!

      Maybe you're just asking the wrong question... ;-)

      --
      A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
    3. Re:Hmmm. I went to 42.com... by nova20 · · Score: 1

      For a web designer, this guy sure has a boring web site.

      -nova20

  25. SPOILERS.. by doowy · · Score: 4, Informative
    I actually don't want to spoil it, and nobody else should because it is a fun excersise..

    I won't post the URL, but here's what it says in case you want a jump on the second question;


    Congratulations. You've made it to level 2. Go to www.Linux.org and enter Bobsyouruncle as the login and the answer to this equation as the password.

    f(1)= 7182818284
    f(2)= 8182845904
    f(3)= 8747135266
    f(4)= 7427466391
    f(5)= __________



    Unfortunatley, the fun ends here. When you enter the correct password, you are taken to google lab's hiring page which I presume is accessible without jumping through hoops.

    --
    ..mork
    1. Re:SPOILERS.. by Issue9mm · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but if you get to the google job page without having Linux.org as the referrer, that might tip them off that you didn't actually solve the problem.

      -9mm-

    2. Re:SPOILERS.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probrably true.

      Those of us who have "network.http.sendRefererHeader" set to zero in their Mozilla's "user.js" file are screwed then.

    3. Re:SPOILERS.. by glass_window · · Score: 1

      Easily solved! Just post the link in the user forums!

    4. Re:SPOILERS.. by donnyspi · · Score: 1

      You can fake the referrer...

    5. Re:SPOILERS.. by Adelvillar · · Score: 1

      Or you could use http://www.ping.be/~ping6758/ World!OfNumbers to search for the integer sequence.

      --
      "In God we trust, all others must bring data" - W. Edwards Deming
    6. Re:SPOILERS.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe you were extra clever about solving the problem?

      BTW, I wouldn't brag about your 9mm penis, it's pretty embarassing...

  26. Re:Oblig. response by Chris_Jefferson · · Score: 1

    Actually, the answer (to the second part of the problem at least) is 49 in this case :) close but no cigar.

    --
    Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
  27. Outcry against google inminent? by perseguidor · · Score: 0

    Well, having received all the time under the spotlight Google has, with it going public and all, I'd be surprised if this kind of aggressive propaganda eventually doesn't result in a aggressive -although segmentary- outcry against the company.

    A group could think the strong focused targetting implied in the ad is racist; or even that leaving people thinking makes google responsible for a climb in the number of accidents on the road : )

    After all, it seems logical: The anti-google movement has to become strong, eventually.

    And yes, I'm aware of http://www.google-watch.com/.

    --
    O make me a mask
  28. There's probably a reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these billboards are in Cambridge, MA, and not College Station, TX.

  29. $31billion by PoopJuggler · · Score: 0

    They have like $31billion in market capitalization now and this is the best they can do?

  30. Why? by Jodka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have heard rumors that Microsoft does something similar, pose math riddles during job interviews.

    I suspect these are just ways around the legal prohibitions on testing job candidates. Employers want to identify the smartest job applicants, and these informal riddles allow them to do that legally.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  31. not any more... by sharp-bang · · Score: 1

    The account appears to be locked.

    --
    #!
  32. Correct Answer... by Manip · · Score: 1

    The correct answer is 11.

    Where do I apply?

    1. Re:Correct Answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the nearest 7-11

    2. Re:Correct Answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good problem solver, cannot follow directions.

      Did we not see the part that says "Go to www.Linux.org and enter Bobsyouruncle as the login and the answer to this equation as the password."?

  33. Really really lame by taybin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the latest issue Dr. Dobbs (you get a free subscription if you attend LinuxWorldConf), they had a pullout job application. It was in the style of an SAT test and was filled with such "oh we're so smart and clever and funny and funky funky fresh" questions such as "write a haiku on database caching" and "the box below is empty. fill it with something" and other questions where any of the questions could be considered correct.

    It was really annoying. It didn't make me want to work there at all. It was like a "oh we're so smart mensa+masturbating club".

    1. Re:Really really lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Failed it, did you?

    2. Re:Really really lame by Cragen · · Score: 1
      Actually, there was the same pullout application disguised as an IQ/SAT test in the latest "MENSA" National magazine, published by guess who? Looked like fun to me, but I am not yet aware any mensan masturbating SIG. Could happen, I guess. Truth is if you are reading slashdot, the odds are that you are Mensa-material, too. (That's meant to be complimentary, BTW.) After you pass the test, you learn that Mensa is nothing but one big party after another. Nothing but a social org. Really disappointing. "sigh".

      Cragen

    3. Re:Really really lame by GeoGreg · · Score: 1

      This same (or similar) insert (the GLAT: Google Labs Aptitude Test) was also in the latest issue of Physics Today (the magazine of the American Institute of Physics). There are questions that have definite answers. However, I imagine they are more interested in being noticed than actually evaluating responses to the "test".

    4. Re:Really really lame by taybin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I figured too. I don't think they actually graded the test.

    5. Re:Really really lame by taybin · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd give Mensa more leeway on their recuitment form, I guess.

      I always liked the Simpsons' Mensa episode where they sit around creating palindromes and making laws to better humanity, such as mandating sex once every 7 years.
      "for some of us, a drastic increase in frequency" -- comic book guy. :)

    6. Re:Really really lame by taybin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Totally. :)

    7. Re:Really really lame by glwtta · · Score: 1

      I thought it was funny... guess I must like masturbation.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    8. Re:Really really lame by craXORjack · · Score: 1
      questions such as "write a haiku on database caching"


      database caching
      what the bloody hell is it
      i don't fuckin' know
      --
      Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
  34. The Answer by p0 · · Score: 2, Interesting


    The digits are 7427466391.

    Here is the website which has another puzzle, and it says :

    Congratulations. You've made it to level 2. Go to www.Linux.org and enter Bobsyouruncle as the login and the answer to this equation as the password.

    f(1)= 7182818284
    f(2)= 8182845904
    f(3)= 8747135266
    f(4)= 7427466391
    f(5)= __________

    The answer here is 5966290435. This number can also be found in the sequence of 'e'

    --
    This is my sig. There are thousands more, but this one is mine.
  35. The point by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    The point is that if you're really smart enough to figure that out, Google wants to see your resume, and for good reason -- it's probably got some experience doing the kinds of things they care about on it. If you just went to the Google hiring page and skipped the problem, well, they could care less.

    --
    stuff |
  36. Spoiler......... by orion41us · · Score: 5, Informative

    Answer to 2nd puzzle is @ http://www.mkaz.com/math/google/.......

    1. Re:Spoiler......... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The site is going slow, so I've mirrored the answer here: 5966290435

      Posting anonymous because I'm not karma farming.

    2. Re:Spoiler......... by MrBlackBand · · Score: 1

      I beat the smart kids! I beat the smart kids! (trips) Ow! I bent my Wookiee...

      --
      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
  37. google should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    spend less time pussy footing about hiring PhDs to pat on the back while MS starts catching them in the search stakes, and spend more time utilising their market share to push :

    a) a jabber based IM linked to their gmail sign-in

    b) a google browser, or a good set of plugins for firefox

    I have had a few searches recently on google which weren't high quality and there are alot of spammers trying to gain attention. Page rank was a breakthrough, and google is still the best, but it wasn't THAT amazing and they need to extend into IM.

    Once they have people with an email and IM service linked to a username/pass they have a solid base that will weather with them while they brew up their magic.

    They are in a weak position, if another search came in right now which was more powerful... they could lose half their market share in a year. IM and email would halt that by far. And if it's based around open standards I would be cheering them on all the way.

    1. Re:google should by tricops · · Score: 1

      Funky... I would love a good quality jabber client. Yeah, I know there are some okay ones out there, but I haven't been thrilled with the amateur look/feeling/quality of most of them. One of my favourites featurewise is JAJC, but it has its own drawbacks too. I really wish the author would add support for brackets around URLs - there's no way to make a clickable url with a space right now. (rather useful for your work's intranet when you're discussing files in directories with spaces)

      I'm sure something out of a company like google would be a bit better put together than most of the offerings. Maybe with a quick built in google search or something. Hell, those google context searches from email would be neat to turn on/off for conversations as well. When discussing programming issues with my coworkers, I would be thrilled to have the information searching/becoming available as we converse.

      --
      (\(\
      (^v^)
      (")")
      This is the cute vorpal bunny virus, copy to your sig or runaway, runaway in fear!
    2. Re:google should by man_ls · · Score: 1

      Type %20 instead of space.

      It's parsed to space pretty much everywhere, but can be typed out for browsers that don't support spaces.

    3. Re:google should by tricops · · Score: 1

      Well, unfortunately that doesn't work in JAJC either. It makes it appear to be one solid link, but clicking the link with %20 doesn't seem to do anything. When I read your post I thought "doh, why didn't I think of that before", but now that I've tried it again and thought further - I'm pretty sure we did try that before. In any event, I would still prefer to be able to enclose the whole thing in <>'s.

      Thanks anyway though. :)

      --
      (\(\
      (^v^)
      (")")
      This is the cute vorpal bunny virus, copy to your sig or runaway, runaway in fear!
  38. Why? Isn't there enough road rage already? by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does Google not realize what these billboards are going to do? Think of the poor embattled commuters sitting in suburban to urban traffic clog.

    Honking at each other.

    Bitching on their cell phones about their wives while pissing off the person(s) behind them who are also on their cell phones bitching about the guy that is jabbering on his phone and not moving forward with traffic.

    Bumping each other and causing just enough damage to their cars to NOT really want to risk an insurance claim but also enough to want to get it fixed before the neighbors think they drive a shitty car.

    Flipping over and killing each other because one of them thought that he/she had to get to work about 30mph faster than everyone else, because that one person has a much busier day of meetings than everyone else on the highway.

    Enter Google -- further frustrating drivers with friggin' math problems on billboards. What? You don't think people will look at them enough to be distracted and frustrated at learning that they're not really Google material?

    I call bullshit. 'cause that bitch on the uncontested divorce for $299 billboard torments me every day. Not because I don't like my marriage or want a divorce. No -- she begs the question -- "Can you beat me in court if you want the dog and the 50" plasma TV? Eh, buddy?"

    Fuck you lady. Fuck you and your uncontested divorce. And fuck Google for teasing me with a job that I probably will have never known existed if it weren't for people that are actually qualified to answer the math problem having posted the g'damned answers here and made feel stupid as shit.

    I'd complain more, but this guy behind me in his gas guzzling SUV is honking at me to move forward one car length while we drive past an accident. Thank god for WiFi in the car. If he honks again, I'm threatening him with the Airsoft 9mm I have in the glove compartment.

    IronChefMorimoto

  39. Mathematica to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First[Position[FromDigits /@
    Partition[RealDigits[N[E,1000]][[1]],10,1],_?Prime Q]]

    {100}

    (FromDigits /@ Partition[RealDigits[N[E,1000]][[1]],10,1])[[100]]

    7427466391

    (Yes, I realise the answer is all over the web,
    this was still fun to figure out)

    1. Re:Mathematica to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Mathematica version after realizing that the sum of digits in f1,f2,f3,f4 is constant. (Third guess)

      eee = RealDigits[N[\[ExponentialE], 1000]][[1]]
      Table[{j, If[Sum[
      eee[[i]], {i, j, j + 9}] == 49, Print[Take[eee, {j, j + 9}]]]}, {j,
      1, 990}];

      The question is: How do you prove that f5= 5966290435 is the only acceptable answer?

      {2,6, 24, 100, ???...........}

  40. this is old news - and... by slashpot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google sucks ass anyway (not the search engine, working for the company). If you don't want to move to Mt. View California about the only jobs available at their data centers all over America are hardware managers (ooh - order replacement ide drives...) and data center techs. Google is screwing the hell out the data center techs, luring people into quitting stable jobs for a chance to get in the door at Google - using "contract positions" to build the data centers while leading people into thinking they'll get hired on and can climb their ladder to a sys admin position. If you don't believe, me do a quick monster.com search. Guess what happens when the data centers are built and the techies contracts are up... "Don't do evil" my ass.

    1. Re:this is old news - and... by Phleg · · Score: 1

      Actually, you mischaracterize Google. I applied for one of these positions that you speak of, and they were quite forthcoming. When I started inquiring about working my way up the ladder, the HR representative I talked to made sure I was aware of the fact that the job was for a period of three to six months. She acknowledged that there may be opportunities for advancement, but that there wasn't guaranteed to even be a chance.

      --
      No comment.
    2. Re:this is old news - and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have lots of engineering jobs outside MV: http://www.google.com/jobs/

  41. ....Solutions by stupid_is · · Score: 1
    Or you could just use google to find all the answers here
    One of many sites already
    Ho hum.

    Ignore my sig :-)

    --
    -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
  42. Re:WOW YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the modder completely understood the joke and just thought it was lame, confusing for those who didn't get the joke, and overrated as very funny. Funny is in the eye of the beholder---an unfunny mod is needed to counteract all the funny mods.

  43. Level 2 - Google puzzle by $exyNerdie · · Score: 1

    http://www.7427466391.com

    Congratulations. You've made it to level 2. Go to www.Linux.org and enter Bobsyouruncle as the login and the answer to this equation as the password.

    f(1)= 7182818284
    f(2)= 8182845904
    f(3)= 8747135266
    f(4)= 7427466391
    f(5)= __________

    Final Level leads you to this page:
    http://www.google.com/labjobs/index.html

    You just need to figure out if you want to solve it and put on your resume of just apply anyway since you have the final page!

  44. Google will ultimately fail . . . by scottennis · · Score: 1

    . . . unless they figure out this one simple fact:

    Math is not English. (Or Math English, if you prefer.)

    Language can only be boiled down to equations so far. There always comes a point where subjectivity, ambiguity, irony, nuance or some other non-mathematical factor takes over. And when it does, it takes over in such a big way that the math breaks down and renders all the previous work null and void.

    Let me know when they start hiring brilliant people who understand language, then I might be interested in applying.

    Besides, everyone knows that poets get more dates than mathematicians.

    1. Re:Google will ultimately fail . . . by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      Maybe English isn't math, but if it isn't, then realizing/admitting/conceding that fact won't help Google - they'd be screwed anyway. More importantly, I'd say they would have been screwed long ago, which would lead me to conclude that you are incorrect, sir.

      To your credit, though, you're probably right about how many dates poets get.

    2. Re:Google will ultimately fail . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let me know when you understand how to think

    3. Re:Google will ultimately fail . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And what are those brilliant people to do who understand the nuances of language but cannot express them in equations? Fill up a cube farm where they answer queries sent through a search engine?

      After all the whole purpose of Google is to transform language knowledge to a form understandable to computers, and the areas of language that cannot be reached by equations cannot be reached by a computer program such as Google, and thus they are essentially irrelevant to Google.

    4. Re:Google will ultimately fail . . . by Ba3r · · Score: 1

      They do, they hire tons of Literature and Language students from Ivy league universities. In addition they hire lots of guys good with numbers, and intensive calculation. As a result they can combine the task of parsing the web, a numerically complex task, based upon parsing human languages. The silicon valley ad is just one aspect of their recruitment.

      That being said, the company that [probably] has the world's most powerful distributed computer is doing an excellent job of vacuuming up all the brains. Hopefully this won't detract from the other 99.99% of industry, you know, the people who get gas into your car (or hopefully design a new energy source), food into your house, orchaestrate foreign policy and trade decisions, and generally create infrastructure that enables this planet to support an ever expanding population of hairless apes. Sure, google is pretty, and is doing an admirable job of providing access to the bulk of the world's information, but i hope at the end there are still some brilliant people to create that information.

      Ok, enough unwarranted doomsday blabbing..

    5. Re:Google will ultimately fail . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course this comment won't get moderated up, it's too correct

    6. Re:Google will ultimately fail . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, even worse, how about those people who are both nuanced in Bayesian lexicography and exquisitely opinionated about Gosper curves?

      What employment test is for them when money is not a motivator? Demotic fractals, language-indexed n-manifolds compared to spectral analysis? But then 5/8 of analysis is lysis and other 1/2 is anal, so perhaps being analytic is so early millennium.

      To apply, write {Khinchin's contant}@gmail.com

    7. Re:Google will ultimately fail . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of this talent and research devoted to invading you privacy and indexing your life.

      Little scary isn't it?

      Of all the things that /.ers chicken little about, this huge falling piece of sky sems to have missed landing on anyone here. Strange.

  45. Not so smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it me or is this kind of question not the stuff of genius. I mean it's just a case of writting a program to brute force the answer. The only leap is figuring out the 49 / sum of digits bit.

    Clever maths stuff doesn't (usually) require brute force. Things like the proof of infinite primes and proof of the irrationality of 2^0.5 - now they are clever. Next time I suggest they have a bill board asking for the proof of Goldbach Conjecture

  46. the answer by unformed · · Score: 1, Redundant

    The billboard answer is:
    http://www.7427466391.com

    which brings you to:

    Congratulations. You've made it to level 2. Go to www.Linux.org and enter Bobsyouruncle as the login and the answer to this equation as the password.

    f(1)= 7182818284
    f(2)= 8182845904
    f(3)= 8747135266
    f(4)= 7427466391
    f(5)= __________

    Each number is in the digits of e, and each set sums up to 49, so you just need to find the 5th set of numbers in e whose sum is 49.

    which is: 5966290435

    chaching, you've got a job!

  47. Here's whats at the end of the trail.. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 0, Redundant
    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  48. All the solutions - spoilers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  49. Picture of Google Billboard by $exyNerdie · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's the Google Billboard picture

    (Also note the ClearChannel name at the bottom of the billboard...)

  50. Public Domain C Source Code anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy blogged his full ANSI C source with the solution: http://www.livejournal.com/users/vab1916/3492.html

  51. GLAT = Google Labs Aptitude Test by drphil · · Score: 1

    Has anyone seen this recruiting tool? Similar to the billboards but with 21 questions: some math, some programming, some just down right silly. I saw it as an insert to the Sept 04 issue of Physics Today. I was going to submit as a Slashot article, but couldn't find a web site with the questions and I'm too damn lazy to scan them into my own web site. If you search GLAT in google you will find several hits on discussion groups and blogs that discuss it. When I first saw it Google gave no hits on GLAT.

    1. Re:GLAT = Google Labs Aptitude Test by sachu · · Score: 1
  52. The Answer... by Paulrothrock · · Score: 4, Informative
    Can be found out using a relatively short Perl script and some math knowledge.

    First, find the first 1, 3, 7, or 9 after the first ten digits after the decimal. Take the preceding 9 digits, and run it through a Prime Number Checker. (The algorithm is in the source).

    Really, the hardest part is determining the farthest decimal points of e. Here's the formula: limn->infinity (1 + 1/n)n.

    It's lazy, impatient, and full of hubris! BTW, I get a finder's fee.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  53. Google is fucking crazy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is trying to make job seekers a hell and misery.

    1. Re:Google is fucking crazy ... by nnappe · · Score: 1

      Thats absurd!
      Everybody knows applicants deserve the best treatment you can provide! It is not until they are actually employed that you should make them feel miserable...

  54. {my phone number}.com by sebol · · Score: 0, Redundant

    so many {number}.com own by google,

    what'll happened if google register {my phone number}.com and point to google.com?

    --
    -- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
  55. Google will give the answer by razmaspaz · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Interestingly enough this will give the answer, faster than ever writing a program for it.

    Do you think if I told them I Googled for the answer they would give me the job?

    --
    I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
    1. Re:Google will give the answer by Glog · · Score: 1

      And what will you do, I pray tell, when you google for all the puzzles and they invite you for an interview and lock you up in a room with 3 more of those puzzles and no computer to google with, hrmmm?

    2. Re:Google will give the answer by ricotest · · Score: 1

      Do you think if I told them I Googled for the answer they would give me the job?

      No.

    3. Re:Google will give the answer by razmaspaz · · Score: 1

      Solve them...just becasue I chose not to solve the problem mathematically doesn't mean I couldn't have. I'm perfectly capable of writing software to find the solution (and I suppose if I knew e to 1500 digits I could do it without software) but that wasn't the point. I'm saying that if the answer is out there already why waste the time solving it? Why expend the time and energy to do something that is already done for me? As an exercise in proving I know how? Seems silly doesn't it? I'd much rather use my time posting pointless responses to comments made on slashdot. ;-)

      --
      I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
    4. Re:Google will give the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if they are hiring for a management job

    5. Re:Google will give the answer by razmaspaz · · Score: 1

      The other responses to this were stupid. But this is LMAO funny!

      --
      I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
  56. Actually the first filter is "Who Cares" by samberdoo · · Score: 0

    If you even care about the problem you meet the first cut. The second problem seperates the "men from the boys." Yes, you can cheat but what does that buy you?

  57. Google's joke by $exyNerdie · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is a joke. Here's why:

    Once you solve the billboard puzzle, you get to this page:
    http://www.7427466391.com
    that has the following text:

    Congratulations. You've made it to level 2. Go to www.Linux.org and enter Bobsyouruncle as the login and the answer to this equation as the password.

    f(1)= 7182818284
    f(2)= 8182845904
    f(3)= 8747135266
    f(4)= 7427466391
    f(5)= __________

    NEXT:
    You go to http://www.linux.org and enter Bobsyouruncle as the Login name and enter 6969696969 as the password. You get this page:

    LOGIN FAILED
    Your attempt to login failed for the following reason:
    we did not find a matching login/password.

    Please Note:
    For security reasons, your account will be locked after three login failures. If you have some doubt as to your login name or password, we suggest you go to the account problems page and have your password and/or login mailed to you while your account is still active.
    Due to heavy administrative workload, locked accounts may take up to one week to be unlocked.


    NEXT:
    But if you want to skip that step, you can, because eventual goal is to get you to this web page:
    http://www.google.com/labjobs/index.html

    1. Re:Google's joke by $exyNerdie · · Score: 1

      go to www.Linux.org and try this user name and password:

      Login: Bobsyouruncle
      Password: 5966290435

      It works and you are just taken to this web page:
      http://www.google.com/labjobs/index.html. The test on the web page is:


      Congratulations.

      Nice work. Well done. Mazel tov. You've made it to Google Labs and we're glad you're here.

      One thing we learned while building Google is that it's easier to find what you're looking for if it comes looking for you. What we're looking for are the best engineers in the world. And here you are.

      As you can imagine, we get many, many resumes every day, so we developed this little process to increase the signal to noise ratio. We apologize for taking so much of your time just to ask you to consider working with us. We hope you'll feel it was worthwhile when you look at some of the interesting projects we're developing right now. You'll find links to more information about our efforts below, but before you get immersed in machine learning and genetic algorithms, please send your resume to us at problem-solver@google.com.

      We're tackling a lot of engineering challenges that may not actually be solvable. If they are, they'll change a lot of things. If they're not, well, it will be fun to try anyway. We could use your big, magnificent brain to help us find out.

      Some information about our current projects:

      Why you should work at Google
      Looking for interesting work that matters to millions of people?
      http://labs.google.com


    2. Re:Google's joke by ricotest · · Score: 1

      So perhaps they actually told linux.org they were going to set up an account that would be 'logged into' about 100 times? And asked them not to lock it or something. For Google, I expect linux.org would do that.

  58. Of course the real point is... by ewanrg · · Score: 1
    The thing I notice about this is that they've found a way to advertise they have jobs available, and to increase their general branding effort, by paying for a simple banner.

    I think that shows a lot more thought than coming up with the equation in the first place.

    As for using it to narrow applications to only "smart" applicants, there are a lot of other ways of doing so. Like following up on referrals...

    Obligatory Plug - Please check out my online novel

  59. Googlespring by slashpot · · Score: 1

    and fyi - even though corporate Google doesn't drug test and has tons of perks (for those in Mt. View California) - the "contract positions" their baiting people with in a lot of major cities come with NO perks and pay through payroll.com (which requires a drug test). Google is going the way of Mindspring-turn-Earthlink. Its sad.

    1. Re:Googlespring by slashpot · · Score: 1

      correction - its payrolling.com not payroll.com - oops

  60. First 100,000 digits of the number e by $exyNerdie · · Score: 1
  61. Re:Why? Isn't there enough road rage already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *yawn*

  62. SCO's new hiring ad... by gosand · · Score: 5, Funny
    SCO has just released a similar billboard puzzle.

    1. Sue IBM
    2. ???
    3. Profit!

    If you have the answer to #2, please contact Darl McBride at SCO.com. We have an immediate opening for someone who can solve this riddle.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:SCO's new hiring ad... by grozzie2 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This is to trivial to even consider as a puzzle.

      1. Sue IBM
      2. Sell Stock
      3. Profit!

      Nuthin to it, and Daryl has executed step 2 very brilliantly.

    2. Re:SCO's new hiring ad... by _newwave_ · · Score: 1

      Well, that's easy...

      2. Pigs Fly

    3. Re:SCO's new hiring ad... by paz5 · · Score: 1

      win?

      Oh I get it I won! what did I win? a lawsuit...

  63. It's on Wikipedia since a while... by flibuste · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can find the answer on Wikipedia - The Exponential

    And it leads to:

    However, I found it a nice challenge to take (not too complicated either), and if you get challenged that while working at Google, it must be a pretty interesting job to have.
  64. My solution, using OpenSSL by taradfong · · Score: 1

    At first I was discouraged because I thought the billboard was looking for primes in pi, not e.

    here's my solution

    --
    Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
  65. Google Labs Help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried plugging the series into Google Sets but it didn't have an answer for me.

    Google must be looking for an engineer to help make that feature more useful.

  66. Welcome aboard! by MarkGriz · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's just kind of clever thinking we're looking for. How does a corner office and $150K/year sound?

    --
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    1. Re:Welcome aboard! by grozzie2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds like a move to an undesirable part of the world, a pay cut, and a requirement to actually commute into somebody else's office. Thanks, but, no thanks.

    2. Re:Welcome aboard! by gphinch · · Score: 1

      Hey now I know most people outside California pride themselves on bashing it, but have you ever been to Mountain View? It's a very pleasant area of northern Cali.

      --
      in bed.
    3. Re:Welcome aboard! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yes, but this is only possible if you *know* that it was Google who posted the ad and I didn't see their name on it.

    4. Re:Welcome aboard! by ethanms · · Score: 1

      150 K's? No dice. I won't settle for anything less then 150 G's.

  67. Google puzzle in Aug 2004 CACM by bartash · · Score: 1

    There is a picture of a fax machine, with this text.

    To send a fax:

    Dial the four digit access code Y
    where 60097 equals f(f(f(Y)))

    This machine has extension number Z
    where f(f(Z)) = 1

    (If you forgot your orientation packet,
    E(x) = number of letters
    when x is written out in American English
    f(x) = 3[E(x)]^^3 -x)

    Then there's the invitation to send your resume, etc.

    PS yes I know that the American English bit is imprecise.

    --
    Read Epic the first RPG novel.
  68. GLAT by hey · · Score: 1

    Also there was th Google Labs Appitude Test in Linux Journal. Including the question "whats wrong with Unix"

  69. Google GLAT ( Google Labs Aptitude Test ) by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Interesting
    My last two issues of Mensa Bulletin have come with the same type 'ads / puzzles'. The last issue came with a small ( 21 question ) aptitude test / basic resume type question layout complete with a return envelope.

    A few sample questions from it:

    #2 Write a haiku describing possible methods for predicting search traffic seasonality.

    #4 You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. There is a dusty laptop here with a weak wireless connection. There are dull, lifeless gnomes strolling about. What dost thou do?

    A) Wander aimlessly, bumping into obstacles until you are eaten by a grue.

    B) Use the laptop as a digging device to tunnel to the next level.

    C) Play MPoRPG until the battery dies along with your hopes.

    D) Use the computer to map the nodes of the maze and discover an exit path.

    E) Email your resume to Google, tell the lead gnome you quit and find yourself in a whole different world.

    #9 This space left intentionally blank. Please fill it with something that improves upon emptiness.

    #17 Consider a function which, for a given whole number n, returns the number of ones required when writing out all numbers between 0 and n. For example, f(13)=6. Notice that f(1)=1. What is the next largest n such that f(n)=n?

    #20 What number comes next in the sequence: 10, 9, 60, 90, 70, 66, ?

    A) 96

    B) 1 followed by 100 zeros ( a Googol )

    C) Either of the above

    D) None of the above

    #21 In 29 words or fewer, describe what you would strive to accomplish if you worked at Google Labs.

    1. Re:Google GLAT ( Google Labs Aptitude Test ) by AndrewHowe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Remember last year?
      Probably, this year's traffic
      Same shape, but scaled up.

    2. Re:Google GLAT ( Google Labs Aptitude Test ) by sgasch · · Score: 2, Informative

      For #17 first I thought "it will never happen again". Then I thought "if I was really smart I'd prove this mathematically". Then I thought "I can write a 4 line C program to see..." Turns out I was wrong. If you're curious:

      1 == 1
      199981 == 199981
      199982 == 199982
      199983 == 199983
      199984 == 199984
      199985 == 199985
      199986 == 199986
      199987 == 199987
      199988 == 199988
      199989 == 199989
      199990 == 199990
      200000 == 200000
      200001 == 200001
      1599981 == 1599981
      1599982 == 1599982
      1599983 == 1599983
      1599984 == 1599984
      1599985 == 1599985
      1599986 == 1599986
      1599987 == 1599987
      1599988 == 1599988
      1599989 == 1599989
      1599990 == 1599990
      2600000 == 2600000
      2600001 == 2600001
      13199998 == 13199998
      35000000 == 35000000
      35000001 == 35000001
      35199981 == 35199981
      35199982 == 35199982
      35199983 == 35199983
      35199984 == 35199984
      35199985 == 35199985
      35199986 == 35199986
      35199987 == 35199987
      35199988 == 35199988
      35199989 == 35199989
      35199990 == 35199990
      35200000 == 35200000
      35200001 == 35200001
      117463825 == 117463825
      500000000 == 500000000
      500000001 == 500000001
      500199981 == 500199981
      500199982 == 500199982
      500199983 == 500199983
      500199984 == 500199984
      500199985 == 500199985
      500199986 == 500199986
      500199987 == 500199987
      500199988 == 500199988
      500199989 == 500199989
      500199990 == 500199990
      500200000 == 500200000
      500200001 == 500200001
      501599981 == 501599981
      501599982 == 501599982
      501599983 == 501599983
      501599984 == 501599984
      501599985 == 501599985
      501599986 == 501599986
      501599987 == 501599987
      501599988 == 501599988
      501599989 == 501599989
      501599990 == 501599990
      502600000 == 502600000
      502600001 == 502600001

    3. Re:Google GLAT ( Google Labs Aptitude Test ) by kent.dickey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you go a little higher, you get a fun number:

      1111111110 == 1111111110

      which is floor((10^10/9) - 1).

      Note that since 500,000,001 worked, and 1 works and 500,000,000 has no 1's in it, then any working values from 0-499,999,999 will repeat with 500,000,000 added. After that, the one above is the only one through 2 billion (where I stopped looking).

    4. Re:Google GLAT ( Google Labs Aptitude Test ) by SassyDave · · Score: 1

      #17 Consider a function which, for a given whole number n, returns the number of ones required when writing out all numbers between 0 and n. For example, f(13)=6. Notice that f(1)=1. What is the next largest n such that f(n)=n?

      199981?

  70. Re:WOW YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was that supposed to be funny? If it was I think you need to be counteracted.

  71. I think they did this in CA a long time ago... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    When I saw the banner ads in the T station I knew it was for Google. Also, is this really news? I had friends that have no clue about how the Internet works, mathematics, or computer science who were asking me if I saw the google ads in the T station about a week ago.

  72. Latest Issue of the Linux Journal Has Something Si by pyite · · Score: 1

    The latest issue I got of Linux Journal has in the middle of it a "Google Labs Aptitude Test" (I think that's what it was called). Has a bunch of IQ type problems and even just some random questions such as "What is your favorite equation?" It's pretty cool, and it comes with an envelope. If they like your answers they say they'll contact you. I'm not sure if this is in the news stand edition of LJ, I'm a subscriber.

    --

    "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

  73. One-liner Mathematica solution to billboard puzzle by coult · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wrote this in a few minutes in Mathematica, and found the answer to the first puzzle. The second puzzle was annoying so I just searched google for it instead.

    en = N[\[ExponentialE], 1000]; Table[x = (Floor[en*(10^k)*10^10] - Floor[en*(
    10^k)]*10^10); If[PrimeQ[x], {k, x}, {k, 0}], {k, 0, 100}]

    --

    All is Number -Pythagoras.

  74. Solution by simgod · · Score: 3, Informative

    SPOILER

    The solutions are:
    http://www.7427466391.com/
    and:
    5966290435

  75. Re:not that complicated - Pfff! watch Futurama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Computers! Whats wrong with using the brain.
    This is the taxicab number (it appears in every single episode of Futurama). Now go and google.

  76. google is just so SMART! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they can KISS MY A$$

    why does google and microsoft think they need so much brainpower?? it doesn't help.

    I'm really not impressed.

  77. It's a targeted ad by xyote · · Score: 1
    If you take into account that it is fairly number theoretic, involves the expansion of e, and that Google's East coast research center is in NYC, it's fairly obvious they're going after graduates of the Courant Institute if you know anything about the makeup of students there and their interests.

    Job seekers tend to complain about the bias of Google towards graduates of certain schools. Well, they can add one more school to the list.

  78. Google's other puzzle? DrDobbs page 3-4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone have the solution for the other google puzzle? the one with the colums with the numbers... 5 colums with numbers, and 1 number missing.

    I googled for the answer, but I didn't see anything jump right out.

    Dr Dobbs -- pages 3 & 4, #364 September 2004

  79. Solution in Mathematica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paste the following code into Mathematica, and execute it.

    s=ToCharacterCode[StringDrop[ToString[N[E,1000]] ,2 ]]-48;
    pos=0;num=0;
    While[num1000000000||!PrimeQ [num],
    num=Mod[num*10+s[[++pos]],10000000000]]
    Print[num ,".com"]
    pos=0;
    Do[While[Apply[Plus,Take[s,{++po s,pos+9}]]?49,]
    Print["f(",i,")=",FromCharacterCode[Take[s,{pos,po s+9}]+48]],
    {i,5}]

    The output is:

    7427466391.com
    f(1)=7182818284
    f(2)=8182845904
    f(3)=8747135266
    f(4)=7427466391
    f(5)=596629043 5

  80. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what? There's nothing illegal about testing candidates. You can't discriminate on sex or race, but testing skills is totally ok.

    good thing you aren't a lawyer... or are you?

  81. Final Page by nherc · · Score: 1
    The final page is here BTW.

    Also, I must confess I didn't bother figuring out the puzzles, but found this on the web via Google. Just goes to show with Google around it's almost impossible to keep a web based secret more than a couple days now.

    --
    'He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.' - Douglas Adams
    1. Re:Final Page by generic · · Score: 1

      So they couldn't think of anything more cryptic then http://google.com/labjobs/index.html? One could pretty much guess that link...

      --
      Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
  82. I see their strategy... by kahei · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...hire only those who like to goof off and write toy programs at their desks instead of doing work... brilliant I tell you brilliant!

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  83. Stewie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn you Tommy Tutone!!

    1. Re:Stewie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      111-1111... Lois? Damn! 111-1112... Lois? Damn!

    2. Re:Stewie by ReadParse · · Score: 1

      Yes! Thank you, thank you. I always enjoy a good Stewie flashback.

  84. Here is the answer by dj.dule · · Score: 1

    After googling a while (actually it was not hard ;))
    you can find explanation here:
    http://www.mkaz.com/math/google/

    But I like the aproach.

  85. All over the place? by suwain_2 · · Score: 1

    I saw a bunch of these in the Harvard Square T station. I have to admit that it aroused my curiousity.

    I didn't stop to think on it too much, though. I figured it was by Register.com or someone, about hard-to-access domain names.

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
  86. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I have heard rumors that Microsoft does something similar, pose math riddles during job interviews.


    Sure. (at least they did ~7 years ago when I interviewed) I do it too when I interview people. It is a good way to see how people adapt to the unexpected and think on their feet.

  87. Joel On Software by bmckeever · · Score: 1

    This was hashed out on the JOS forum earlier in the summer: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default .asp?cmd=show&ixPost=160966

    --
    Your favorite .sig sucks
  88. Who is smarter? by lsidir · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It took me about 3 minutes to find the answers of both puzzles in the internet... using google search.
    <b>
    Who is the smartest? the one who actual writes the code to find the answers in say 20 minutes or the one who uses google?

    1. Re:Who is smarter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy who writes the code.

  89. Hmmmm.... by Transient0 · · Score: 1

    I suspect you are making a math joke, but i don't think i get it. I am assuming that the basis of the joke is binary and that you are suggesting that the first 10-digit prime number in e is actually the first 2-digit(decimal) number in e. But 11 is just the first 2-digit(decimal) prime number, not the first one in e. The first 2-digit(decimal) prime number in e is in fact 71.

    On the other hand, perhaps you are imagining the the first 10-digit(binary) prime number in a binary expression of e. In this case, the answer is certainly going to be 11 as it is the ONLY 10-digit(binary) prime binary number.

    OK, good joke. haha.

  90. Isn't a correct answer th smallest 10-digit prime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the problem statement ambiguous?

    So isn't a correct answer the smallest
    (first) 10-digit prime??

    Since e goes on forever, doesn't every digit pattern show up in "e"?

  91. Schools by maggard · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Why Cambridge's Harvard Square? 'Cause it's a popular hangout for students & recently-student folks out for dinner, a show, some shopping (still has a few good bookstores.) Check out this list of area-schools and see why companies retain offices in the area just for recruiting Of course the local hi-tech/biotech/medical/finance/insurance/governme nt industries all also bring in, and offer up, a lot of folks too. I'm only in town part-time but it does make for a heady mix of bright-types.
    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
  92. If they'd employed me.... by Numen · · Score: 1

    ...I'd of been able to tell them why this idea wasn't going to work if they're search engine worked to any degree.

    But I don't work for them, so they went and did it =)

    1. Re:If they'd employed me.... by Antony.S · · Score: 1

      Their*

      Now we know why you don't work for them =)

  93. I'd thought it was an IBM/Oracle thing by Animats · · Score: 1

    That ad appeared on a billboard near Oracle headquarters, which usually contains some IBM ad tweaking Oracle. I'd expected that if I solved the problem, I'd get back a DB2 ad.

  94. I used Google to find the answer... by foistboinder · · Score: 3, Informative

    Math : Google Labs Problems

    When do I start?

  95. you poor sap... by budhaboy · · Score: 1
    42 is neither 10 digits or prime.

    1. Re:you poor sap... by sinserve · · Score: 1

      42 could be to digits, if yelled out at a valley with sufficient echo. Prime too, a prime example of a useless number that is.

  96. Questions in latest Dr. Dobbs Journal, Too by ClippyHater · · Score: 1

    The latest issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal has a 3-page pullout of questions from Google: "Score high enough and we'll be in touch."

    Some interesting questions, some difficult, some trivial ("This space left intentionally blank. Please fill it with something that improves upon emptiness").

    1. Re:Questions in latest Dr. Dobbs Journal, Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this is the most difficult problem,
      although emptiness and vacuum energy and its distant cousin dark energy are interesting in themselves.

  97. haha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    phase 3 has been locked down. its on www.linux.org and has had too many failed login attempts. and eta, 1 week to unlock locked accounts. guess that idea just FAILED.

    answers can be found here: http://www.mkaz.com/math/google/

    the results from trying to login:

    LOGIN FAILED

    Your attempt to login failed for the following reason:
    we did not find a matching login/password.
    Please Note:

    For security reasons, your account will be locked after three login failures. If you have some doubt as to your login name or password, we suggest you go to the account problems page and have your password and/or login mailed to you while your account is still active.

    Due to heavy administrative workload, locked accounts may take up to one week to be unlocked.

    Remember, only registered users may login. If you aren't a Linux Online user, we invite you to register.

  98. Communicating with Math by stuffduff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I recently got a new cell phone. I took information for a search and asked for a vanity number. Then I kept hearing the numbers as they told me what was available, checking it and telling them 'no.' Finally on the 11th try I got an acceptible number. What I was searching for was a 7 digit prime. Fortunately the number with area code was the product of two primes as well. Now I can give out either the ordinal index of the prime for the local, or the prime factors of the 10 digit number. People who are unable to deal with the math just can't call me!

    --
    "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
    1. Re:Communicating with Math by 216pi · · Score: 1

      I bet you got laid several times last weekend, right?

    2. Re:Communicating with Math by stuffduff · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm married, so it's not an issue! ;^)

      --
      "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
    3. Re:Communicating with Math by CRC'99 · · Score: 1

      I bet you don't get any calls... not even from the female members of any species.

      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
    4. Re:Communicating with Math by stuffduff · · Score: 1

      Wrong on both counts. I'm 14 years married and the mobile to mobile minutes are free. But you two both seem to recognize a loser; 'takes one to know one.'

      --
      "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
  99. This was posted about 1 month ago by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    On various sources.

    I thought for a moment I had gone back in time. Then I realised I just finished ready Get Fuzzy, so I felt better.

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  100. Similar EA billboard by EnsilZah · · Score: 0

    A friend of mine sent me a picture of an EA-canada billboard along the same lines, though much much simpler.

    It was white on black text:
    char msg []={78,111,119,32,72,105,114,105,110,103,0};

  101. shortest answer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It took me about four minutes -- it's all a question of having the right tools. I used Mathematica and the following code:
    $MaxExtraPrecision = 100;
    For[i = 1, i < 100, i++,
    n = IntegerPart[(10^i E - IntegerPart[10^i E])10^10];
    Print[i, " ", n, " ", PrimeQ[n]]
    ]
    Done! (Well, I got a bit lucky on my choice of the upper limit for the index i, so I got this on the first try.)

    The next puzzle looks fairly trivial (start by looking at offsets in e to 10-digit numbers), but I have a job so no time for such diversions.
    1. Re:shortest answer? by brenQ(*) · · Score: 1

      Even Shorter:

      Select[Table[Floor[10^10 FractionalPart[N[e,j+15] 10^j]],{j,0,200}],PrimeQ]

  102. Reminds me of... by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

    this cool job ad...

  103. Spotted July 10th by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    Ok I will stop whining about old news

    I mean come on that is what you get for posting NPR news! *ducks*

    I think /. should have a news source rating system. Or even an author rating system.

    Give the people something to do between stories!

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  104. More Google Puzzles in Print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pay a visit to http://www.haller.ws/logs/index.cgi?start=10&end=2 0&index=1 and search for "GoogleProblems" minus the quotes. You'll find TIFF files of each of Google's ads that have appeared in magazines!

  105. A different kind of "smart" by pauljlucas · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The problem is that the ability to answer such questions has nothing really to do with being able to design or implement good software. I've known several really "smart" PhDs who couldn't code for crap. The problem is they really don't care about code. To them, software design and implementation are merely a means to an end: it's not interesting to them in and of itself. Hence, they never bother to learn to get good at it. They hack together prototypes only to solve the (more interesting) problem at hand. It's some of the most awful code you'll ever see.

    Then there are people who are great software designers and implementors who have little ability to solve complex/obsure math problems. Google is throwing all those people away.

    --
    If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    1. Re:A different kind of "smart" by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Maybe google doesn't want or need that many people.

      So they might as well pick those who can do both (and more).

      --
    2. Re:A different kind of "smart" by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      But, based on their questions, they don't know applicants can do both.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    3. Re:A different kind of "smart" by TheLink · · Score: 1

      So? I believe the idea is to narrow down to a potential pool of candiates (and stuff like this does narrow things down), get more info from those and then only invite a few promising ones for the interview. And then only hire the ones thought suitable.

      I'd think that would be a typical process, but I'm not an HR resource person. Certainly better than getting a large number of mostly unsuitable candidates.

      I don't blame them, esp if Slashdotters are good examples of the typical IT candidate. They probably want to hire those who actually _bother_ to solve the problem (or those who solve it almost by reflex - no need for extra effort). Not those that can but "don't feel like it", or it's "not their thing".

      Or are too busy reading Slashdot to solve the prob ;).

      --
    4. Re:A different kind of "smart" by pauljlucas · · Score: 1
      I believe the idea is to narrow down to a potential pool of candiates
      I know fully well what the idea is. My point was that the test they use selects only a single kind of smart person. Yes, Google needs those kind of smart people, but Google also actually has to develop code in-house. Their test throws away people who are great designers and coders but not obscure math problem solvers. What good are lots of bright ideas if you can't implement them well?
      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  106. They targetted Mensa, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the most recent issue of the Mensa Bulletin, there was an insert which doubled as a test/job screening tool for Google with very geek-oriented questions. (What is wrong with UNIX? How would you fix it?) Some allowed for creativity (there's a blank rectangle with a message above saying that blank spaces are boring, fill it with something interesting).

    Yes, I found it intriguing, but I was too lazy to fill it out. I was going to make a nice picture out of various forms of pasta glued to the page in that aforementioned blank space, but again, I couldn't be bothered to go to the supermarket just for that.

  107. Too much math by ehiris · · Score: 1

    I personally would appreciate working with people who know that 2+2*10 does not equal 40! :)

    1. Re:Too much math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are aware that it equals 22, right?

  108. Re:not that complicated - Pfff! watch Futurama by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

    1729

    --
    01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
  109. Interesting-In the Garden of Good and Nerdy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I think it speaks well of the company that they try to weed out candidates by testing problem solving rather than by who has the prettiest resume."

    And that's different from the math test companies give you, how?

  110. Primes! by Agilo · · Score: 1

    All this talk about primes and calculators and such.
    If only they had it in the Cube.

    --
    - Agilo
  111. Re:Why? by Jodka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "What? There's nothing illegal about testing candidates. You can't discriminate on sex or race, but testing skills is totally ok."

    It is illegal to give job candidates intelligence tests. So if you want smart employees, you need to find a way around the law.

    Legally, the determination of whether you are engaged in discrimitory hiring practices is not based only on your intent. It also includes discrepant impact; If any any test which you administer as part of you job selection process favors a particlar race, then you are guilty of discrimimation. Courts have ruled that tests which measure intelligence are an illegal test for purposes selecting job candidates.

    The only exception is that if you can show that that the test specifically measures the skill required for the job. For example, you could give driving tests to drivers. I doubt that if these same math riddles were posed on a written exam that they would pass that legal test for job-relatedness. Google would have to show in court that searching for prime numbers was part of the work that these employees would be expected to do on the job. They ony way employers can get away with this is to pose the same questions informally.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  112. They copied me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I used this technique to tell a girl I had a crush on her when I was in 8th grade! (I was a geek then, too, so I didn't have the guts to just tell her.) I sent her an e-mail, and if you scrolled down a million lines, you would see this link: http://98765432109.tripod.com/ For those of you who want to figure it out for yourself, stop reading now.

    If you go to the web site, it will say "View > Source". If you click View > Source (in most browsers) you will see the source code. Scroll down a bit, and you will see an absolutely huge chunk of binary and a link to http://nickciske.com/tools/binary.php. Go to the site and translate the binary and you'll get... more binary. You have to translate it about three or four times before you get the following: 26-14-12 7-22. Take each number and subtract it from 27. Then take that number and translate it to letters. (ie, 1 is A, 2 is B, 3 is C, etc.) It spells out Amo Te, which is Latin for I Love You. As far as I know, she never found it.

    You can probably understand why I'm posting this as AC.

  113. quick php solution by joeldg · · Score: 1

    here is a solution in php.
    <?
    $e="718281828459045235360287471352662497 7572470936 99959574966967627724076630353547594571382178525166 42742746639193200305992181741359662904357290033429 52605956307381323286279434907632338298807531952510 19011573834187930702154089149934884167509244761460 66808226480016847741185374234544243710753907774499 20695517027618386062613313845830007520449338265602 9760";

    for($a=0;$astrlen($e);$a++){
    $chunk = substr($e, $a, 10);
    $tot = 0;
    for($z=0;$zstrlen($chunk);$z++){
    $tot = $chunk{$z} + $tot;
    }
    if($tot == 49){
    echo $chunk."\n";
    }
    }
    ?>

  114. This is funny. by blanks · · Score: 1

    When you view the html on the second page (http://7427466391.com/)

    You will see the following

    <td align=right>f(5)=</td>
    <td>__________</td>
    </tr>

    <!-- no help here -->

    First thing I allways check with web based riddles is the html code, sometimes they hide interesting information in it, and I guess they expected that.

  115. And in related news.... by ljessup · · Score: 1

    Thursday Sept 16th, Highway 101: It was a calm day on 101 until Jim Bob, a.k.a. Bubba parked his pickup truck on the side of the road and declared enough was enough. Jim Bob was in search of an answer.

    After several failed attempts at flipping the
    billboard to uncover the google mystery that "plagued his journey from hayfield to that darn toot'n city", Mr. Bob used a TNT to detonate one side of the sign.

    Sadly Bubba never did discover the answer. Bubba leaves behind his dog spot, and rover.

    A memorial service is scheduled for Friday Sept 24th.

  116. Maybe.... by iamatlas · · Score: 1

    Some janitor with a penchant for anonymity and serious emotional problems with a fear of commitment will pass by and solve the problem, leaving Google to search for him. Could even make a decent movie....

  117. Re:Are you joking? by 216pi · · Score: 1

    never ever make a joke about s/o who has a fucking unbelievable TWO-DIGIT slashdot id!

  118. For those of you with Mathematica, by danmitchell · · Score: 1

    the first problem is truly trivial:

    digits = First[RealDigits[N[E,300]]];
    numbers = Table[FromDigits[Take[digits,{n,n+9}]],{n,1,Length [digits]-9}];
    primes = Select[numbers,PrimeQ[#]&]

    First line prints out e as a list of its first 300 digits, second line forms 10 digit numbers from consecutive elements of the list, and the last line prints out the 10 digit numbers that are prime.

    --
    The problem with God is that he thinks he's Richard Wagner
  119. 4 GB worth of primes... by douglips · · Score: 1

    There are approximately 400 million 10 digit prime numbers.

    Of course, they compress well...

    link:
    http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/howmany.shtml

  120. Yes but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you really want someone at work who spends all their day on the internet figuring out things for other companies?

  121. Re:Are you joking? by joranbelar · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, it's okay to make jokes when said someone bought their two-digit slashdot id on ebay for $115.

  122. The answer... by Rew190 · · Score: 1

    42.

  123. Legal Prohibitions? by Idylwyld · · Score: 1

    What legal prohibitions to testing job applicants exist? I skills test all my applicants (in the bus business but still), the Feds test all their applicants. I've personally had to take several tests for different jobs. There's nothing wrong with using objective testing criteria, even arbitrary objective testing criteria, when screening job applicants.

    --
    "Secrecy is the Beginning of Tyranny" "No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law" -Robert Heinlein
    1. Re:Legal Prohibitions? by Jodka · · Score: 1

      "There's nothing wrong with using objective testing criteria, even arbitrary objective testing criteria"

      From accounts I have read on the subject, it is my understanding that arbitrary testing criteria, if they have differential impact by race, legally constitute discriminitory hiring practices. If a member of a racial minority group applies for a job, and you do not hire and you have used an arbitrary testing criterion as part of the interview process, then you will lose that in court. Skills testing will win if you can show that the skills tested directly relate to the work.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  124. Re:Are you joking? by galaxy300 · · Score: 1

    Purchased on eBay. You could get one too!

  125. Solutions are easy when you already know the answe by acomj · · Score: 1

    That solution is poor because the billboard doesn't mention google at all.

    Once you know its google that method works fine, but if you didn't know it wouldn't work..

  126. I had a similar experience. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, this "test" is rather interesting. It reminds me with an experience I had...

    I had a phone interview with a large consulting firm, and near the conclusion, they instructed me to go to a Web site and take a test that covered in great detail the topic I would be worknig with. Well, they never said I couldn't use the Internet as a reference, so in another window, I used Google and several other search tools to research some of the answers that I didn't know off the top of my head. After completing the test, the recruiter told me that I had scored in the top 10% of all respondents, and after a second face-to-face interview, I got the job.

    The point is that many companies, when hiring employees, are more interested in how you go about solving problems and what resources you can bring with you that will help you answer the challenges that the job presents. Obviously, they want the correct answer, but they also want problem solvers, not brainiacs who just spew out calculation results.

  127. The engineers at google must suck... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    ...if they need to display posters like that in order the find the solutions to their problems. And they're not even offering to pay the people who solve them.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:The engineers at google must suck... by BillsPetMonkey · · Score: 1

      More importantly, the HR people must suck as most of the talented mathematicians in India, China, UK, Finland and well just about everywhere else in the world will not see this billboard.

      "We think outside the box" has never sounded so trite.

      --
      "It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
  128. unbelievable by moby · · Score: 1

    i used to check ./ every day
    lately, there seems to be less and less reasons to continue
    now i don't think the editors even read the site any longer
    wow - holy cow - same old sign, same old story ...

  129. Re:You fucking people never cease to amaze me. by Itstoearly · · Score: 1

    Now THATS funny!

  130. Not at all -- they want the slashdotters too by xant · · Score: 4, Funny

    And here's why: The people who did the hard math to solve the problem--hey, they'll make great coders, welcome aboard.

    Those of us who googled it or read the /. article successfully got other people to do the work for us, and then took credit for it.

    Welcome aboard, manager!

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  131. Re:You fucking people never cease to amaze me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it was a joke aswell. maybe not funny, but doesn't mean anyting you say it does.

  132. Re:You fucking people never cease to amaze me. by feepness · · Score: 1

    Similar sentiments sir...

    Do you think ANYONE actually knows their multiplication table up to 37?

    Sheesh. Less coffee, more pampers.

  133. Here's what they're really looking for. by Slargon+the+Spiteful · · Score: 1

    {the set containing the names of the girls you have slept with in the past 6 weeks intersected with the set of fictional languages you have learned with the union of the set of fantasy worlds you live role play in }.com

  134. Try this by kensiky · · Score: 1

    Try this, the numbers start with the 2,6,24,100 digit so do g(x)=y there the y values are the indexes to get g(1)=2 g(2)=6 g(3)=24 g(4)=100, then for fun divide y by x to get 2,3,8,25 and notice the
    g(x)=(g(x-1)*g(x-2))+(5-x) pattern 2,3,8,25,400,9999,... so then g(5)= 5(400)
    so its the 10 digit number starting at the 2000 index so its f(5)=3955990067. I guess google did not see that one.

  135. Re:You fucking people never cease to amaze me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it wasn't funny and it wasn't modded funny. It was modded "Informative and Insightful". That makes the moderators that modded the original post and now that post asshats. You, as well, are an asshat.

  136. Googlestink by slashpot · · Score: 1

    My experience was different.
    Maybe its a function of post-IPO Google.
    Maybe its a function of how desperate the HR representative is to fill those positions in a particular city.

    I asked these questions bluntly and got the this-is-the-only-way-to-get-your-foot-in-the-door- and-you-will-get-hired-on-and-can-enter-our-mentor -program-to-climb-the-sys-admin-ladder-crap. Note: I'm already a sys admin for the last 8 yrs, they contacted me two days after the IP0, and the Google HR rep did not disclose that the position would be entry-level-contract (a major step back for me) until the day of the interview. I google searched for her name and contact number and found blog entries from others that had accepted these contract positions. I then emailed several of them asking for the inside scoop - el admino to el admino. The replies I got made it clear what was going on. I lost a lot of respect for Google.

  137. Daa! by siskbc · · Score: 1
    In my case it took me about one hour of C# programming and head scratching to found out the fifth number. The puzzle is not very hard but it requires a little bit of unorthodox thinking. Don't start with classical extrapolation techniques...

    Got that right. Try it and you'll be there all day. I also have to say, if I'd used matlab or pascal instead of python (or C++ for that matter), I'd have had it 10 minutes sooner. D'oh!

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  138. Bobsyouruncle Password by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    The password at www.Linux.org is 5966290435.

    A crafty engineery already jumped through these hoops:
    http://wernerkai.sites.uol.com.br/google/google.ht m

  139. More waste by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

    It's hype and bullshit like this that makes every wage-earning employee less and less valuable. Jobs are now becoming game show prizes, and the competition to earn them a side show in a progressively more grotesque and tragic display of suffering, despair and the deliberate torment of the powerless.

    The dignity of a day's work for a day's wage BEGINS in the interview process. Forcing people to navigate some baroque and obscure cross between a deranged lab experiment and a carnival attraction as a requirement for consideration as a temporary meeting attendee is the height of arrogance, incompetence and greed.

    It will not be long before everyone, including the "candidates" for these worthless prize packages dressed up as careers, has lost all respect for the workplace, as well they should. It is a festering, maggot-infested cesspool of thievery, avarice, envy and contempt for colleagues described by the harmless sounding euphemism "office politics."

    Let's all watch the catered self-congratulatory theatrics celebrating the obsolescence of jobs. Then we can return to planning how we're supposed to build communities and neighborhoods without careers.

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    1. Re:More waste by forkboy · · Score: 1

      You're just mad because you couldn't figure it out.

      Seriously, though, the kind of math-head problem solving nerds that have both the time and ambition to work this problem out are the kind of people Google is looking for in their R&D department. Why are they such evil exploitative capitalists for making sure only those kinds of folks apply for the job?

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    2. Re:More waste by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      Why are they such evil exploitative capitalists for making sure only those kinds of folks apply for the job?

      I didn't say they were evil. They will use this "test" to justify passing over qualified, degreed candidates (who have already demonstrated their ability) further damaging an already pointless job market.

      It proves they don't take their employees' careers seriously because they present job opportunities as party favors. It is cynical, lazy, counter-productive and wrong. Is it really so difficult to just fairly consider qualified people?

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
  140. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It is illegal to give job candidates intelligence tests.
    Can you cite a federal or state law to support this?
  141. Re:Isn't a correct answer th smallest 10-digit pri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the way I read it also.

  142. Is it 1000314703 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the number is 1000314703.

    Look at 136986-136996 digits in e.

    Though 1000314703.com doesn't work :(

    1. Re:Is it 1000314703 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well its the first prime, not the lowest prime.

  143. Actually, those people are directed to another job by LordIvan · · Score: 1

    "Ah, leeching off the work of others? Pointy haired haircut?
    Welcome to management!"

  144. The answer is wrong... by comrade009 · · Score: 0

    The real site should be 0000000002.com.

    1. Re:The answer is wrong... by Dr.+Null · · Score: 1

      Excelent!
      I tried this too...

      What does First Mean?... First occurrence in the descending significance sequence of digits in E, or first in the ascending sequence of 10 digit prime numbers?

      I also tried www.0000000010.com (the same in base 2)

      The base of the number system is not specified. There are no numbers in the billboard.

      The number of 10 digit prime numbers in base 2 is much smaller than those in base 10. The search will be smaller, and the probability of finding a match earlier in the digits of E is much higher for base 2 than base 10...

      In fact the solution to this problem in base 2, assuming the MSB bit is 1, (no left padding with 0s) is 1011000101

      which is 709 in base 10,the 127th prime number, which appears in E at position 24 (24 binary digits to the left of the binary point).
      E, in base 2, out to this first 10 digit prime sequence is

      10.101101111110000101010001011000101
      Top that for early occurring match!!

      I like the 0000000002 solution...

      The question is... where in the E Digit sequence does this first occur?

      The base two answer...
      0000000010 hits at E digit position 1716

      Mathematica is a wonderful Time Waster.

      Dr. Null

  145. Another way to search for the answer to part 2 by emurphy42 · · Score: 1
  146. modded Informative? pshaw! by fliptout · · Score: 1

    +5 Smart ass is more like it :)

    Wacky moderation abound in this thread.

    --
    A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
  147. Re:You fucking people never cease to amaze me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Uh, I don't think you got the joke. In my opinion, it was funnier than the original one.

  148. Prime Number Checking by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    #include <stdio.h>

    /* Sieve of Eratosthenes: a program to find prime numbers */

    int main() {
    int start_at = 5;
    int up_to = 200;
    int miss = 2;
    /* We implicitly eliminate all multiples of 2 and 3 by starting at 5, and
    alternately skipping 2 and 4. So, every number we look at is either
    6n+1 or 6n+5. This is because;

    6n = multiple of 2 and 3
    6n+2 = even
    6n+3 = multiple of 3
    6n+4 = even */
    int remainder, i, j, k, last;
    int known[500];
    known[0] = 2;
    known[1] = 3;
    int n_known = 2;
    for (i = start_at; i <= up_to; ) {
    printf("Looking for factors of %d\n", i);
    remainder = 1;
    last = 0;
    for (j = 2; ((!last) && (j < n_known)); ) {
    /* j is the index in our array of known primes. */
    k = known[j];
    /* k is a known prime number. */
    printf("Trying %d ..... ", k);
    remainder = i % k;
    if (!remainder) {
    printf("%d is a multiple of %d.\n", i, k);
    last = 1;
    /* No point continuing once we know we have not got a prime. */
    }
    else {
    printf("%d is NOT a multiple of %d; remainder is %d.\n",
    i, k, remainder);
    };
    if (k * k > i) {
    printf("%d is greater than the square root of %d.\n", k, i);
    last = 1;
    /* Every prime factor of a number must be smaller than the
    square root of that number; so we stop when we have
    exceeded that. */
    };
    if ((!remainder) || (k * k > i)) {
    last = 1;
    };
    ++j;
    };
    /* If the remainder is non-zero here, then we must have fallen out of
    the loop because we ran out of primes, or exceeded the square root,
    rather than because we rejected an obvious multiple. So, we can
    add i to our list of known primes. */
    if (remainder) {
    printf("%d looks like a prime.\n", i);
    known[n_known++] = i;
    };
    /* Now we move on to the next known non-multiple of 2 or 3 */
    i += miss;
    miss = 6 - miss;
    /* If we just skipped 2, next time we must skip 4.
    If we just skipped 4, next time we must skip 2. */
    };
    printf ("Found %d prime numbers smaller than %d\n", n_known, up_to);
    for (i = 0; i < n_known; i++) {
    printf("%d ", known[i]);
    };
    printf("\n");
    return(0);
    };

    /* Note this may well need to be modified to run all the way up to 10 figures.
    But that's no problem for a hacker :) */

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  149. Google Ap Test in Physics Today by peter303 · · Score: 1

    This month's copy of Physics Today had the Google Aptitude Test (GLAT) as an insert. I guess they they were interested in brainy people like physicists. For years, MicroSoft would recruit physics departments.

    I found some of the questions ironic. Like some say "in five lines say how you change this ...". I roll my eyes then when a Google search returns "128,983,871 pages found".

  150. Re:Oblig. response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have expected both you and the mods to get the joke, but apparently i'm wrong.

  151. Perhaps Google is looking for guys like you. by Brainboy · · Score: 1

    Personnally, if I was Google, if anyone could provide an answer that worked and why, I would give that person serious consideration for employment. Just people the monkeys in the math room came up with one answer, doesn't mean I ignore those who can prove that it can be something else. Then again I'm not Google so there is no way for me to know what they are looking for, but I'm thinking they are just looking for math-minded out-the-box thinkers.

    --
    Just a guy with an opinion
  152. Re:Oblig. response by Chris_Jefferson · · Score: 1

    I'm insulted that you think I don't know 42 is the answer to life the universe and everything :)

    However, I was amused in this case that 42 (the answer everyone always gives) happened to be so close to the actual answer (49)

    --
    Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
  153. Re:not that complicated - Pfff! watch Futurama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My mistake, the 1729th decimal place is the beginning of the first occurrence of all ten digits consecutively in the decimal representation of e

    (lowers his head in shame)

  154. Not just in Massachusetts by The+Kow · · Score: 1

    They've got one of these posted along Highway 101, too. For anyone not in the Bay Area, that's the (far) more heavily-used of the two highways that goes from San Francisco to San Jose.

    --
    Moo
  155. 2 HINTS for level 2 problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (1) After solving the origional problem, the digits of f(1) should look mighty familiar...

    (2) You might notice that the last 6 digits of f(1) are the same as the first 6 digits of f(2).

    The other 4 digits in f(1) and f(2) have a certain similarity that I will not give away, but it implies that the digits of f(1) and f(2) have a common property. By checking you will find that the property holds for f(3) and f(4).

  156. In capitalist USA... by Mxyzptlk · · Score: 2, Funny

    employees interview themselves for YOUR company.

    1. Re:In capitalist USA... by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Are you asking to be Google-bombed?

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
  157. Autistic in Seattle by macmurph · · Score: 3, Funny

    I saw that bill board in downtown Seattle. My immediate reaction was, "That's dumb... Why would anyone want the URL http://www.7427466391.com/ ?"

    1. Re:Autistic in Seattle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their gopher site just wasn't getting many hits any more.

  158. San Jose? by DonGar · · Score: 2, Informative

    They did this in San Jose a few months ago going North and South on 101. I just assumed it had hit slashdot then and I'd missed the article.

    I saw the billboard and decided to solve it. Went googling for a list of pre-computed primes and found the answer already solved instead.

    --
    plus-good, double-plus-good
  159. Re:Are you joking? by macmurph · · Score: 1

    never ever make a joke about s/o who has a fucking unbelievable TWO-DIGIT slashdot id!

    No silly, bigger is better!

  160. sigh. just google for it. by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Sigh. Far and away the easiest way to find the answer to this question is to google for it.
    -russ

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  161. That was fun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know where to find similar problems? This one was kind of challenging... me like.

  162. useless by laidon · · Score: 1

    google is nothing but an overrated, neo dot com, hubris bloated, geek infested, search tool. well at least they're hiring...

    1. Re:useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that about sums it up

  163. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ugh, this is old news. July 12, 2004... Two months old xX;

    1. Re:Old news by Destoo · · Score: 1

      indeed.

      here's a blog about it.

      It's all true - I was alerted to this by a developer friend (hi, Peter!) and we went 'Ooooh! That's fun!'
      So apologies for creeping you out. But anything involving natural logarithms and roadside advertising is too good to pass up. No sign of Slashdot taking an interest, though.
      Rupert Goodwins, technology editor, ZDNet UK
      Friday, July 09, 2004

      --
      Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
  164. So the REAL test is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how well can people use Google?

    Though a better puzzle would have been:

    {What's the name of the company whose sole goal is to invade the privacy and index the entire life of every entity, living or dead, biological or not in the known universe?}.com

  165. Pari-GP (was Mathematica) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mathematica is commercial crap. Pari-GP is GPL.

    default(realprecision,2000);
    e=exp(1):
    f or(m=1,200,a=floor(10^m*e)%10^10;if(isprime(a),pri nt(m," ",a)))
    summ(b)=r=b%10;for(j=1,9,r=r+floor(b/10^j) %10);r
    for(m=1,200,a=floor(10^m*e)%10^10;if(summ( a)==49,print(m," ",a)))

  166. It's a text processing problem by RDPIII · · Score: 1

    Folks have posted Mathematica and other code here, which, while very elegant, treats this as a math problem. However, the problem can be viewed as a simple text processing task and solved by standard Unix tools, pretty much on the command line. The first step is to get the file ee710.txt from Project Gutenberg, e.g. here. Then it's a simple matter of using an AWK or Python script to generate ten-digit substrings and pipe them into factor.

    --
    Marklar: marklar
  167. Bunch of Cry-babies. by TheShadow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    After reading the first 20 or so comments posted in response to this article, I've come to the conclusion that the average /. reader is a fucking cry-baby.

    --

    --
    "What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
  168. Pissed me off by siskbc · · Score: 1

    What irked me is that 4 numbers aren't really enough. I was factoring the numbers and found a formula based on numbers going down the center, vertical row of Pascal's triangle that was related to the starting index of strings themselves. The first string started at the 2nd digit, the second at the 6th, the third at the 24th, and the fourth at the 100th. Those numbers are the middle of the 0th, 2nd, 4th, and 6th rows of Pascal's triangle. So the [1,2,3,4]th numbers start at the [2,6,24,100]th positions of "e". [n+1]*[[(2*(n-1))!]/[((n-1)!)^2]] also matches the answers, leading me to plug 5 into that formula, get 420, find the 10 digits of e starting at the 420th position, and plug that in. Wrong answer.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  169. Re:One-liner Mathematica solution to billboard puz by FryGuy1013 · · Score: 1

    Shorter:

    en = 7247093699

    --
    bananas like monkeys.
  170. Re:sigh. just google for it. by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

    Alas, at the goal some people might see
    (META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW").

    8-)

    i will not use so many caps
    so many caps i will not use

    --

    Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
  171. Can someone explain 1st one to us numbskulls? by Sark666 · · Score: 1

    Ok, I used to love math in highschool, but have let my math skills drift many years ago. Looking at the first question I don't even understand what it's asking.
    Looking at this site this person breaks down his logic: http://www.mkaz.com/math/google/

    My first intrepretation of the problem was to find the first 10-digit prime...

    After that he loses me, and he even provides an explanation of E but I don't really get it and how it applies to this question. Can someone explain the question in a way that someone with basic math skills can understand it?

    Sigh... I miss math, there was a time when I believed my career would be in mathematics/computer science. Instead of being stuck in a dead end job.

  172. Ah fu[dge]... by gessleX · · Score: 1

    Be sure to drink your ovaltine.

  173. 1, 5, 23, 99 or 2, 6, 24, 100 by PartyOnTheSand · · Score: 1

    f(1) appears at the first digit after the decimal point of e. f(2) at the 5th f(3) at the 23th f(4) at the 99th so maybe 1, 5, 23 and 99 have something in comon. but what? another way to interpret f() is to take the 2 in front of the decimal point into account and say that f(1) begins with the second digit of e.. next idea would be to take the ending digits 10, 14, 32, 108 or 11, 15, 33, 109 can anybody tell me about the system behind it? thanks, sebastian

  174. What Base?... base 2 has a match 24 places in by Dr.+Null · · Score: 1

    In base 2, the first 10 digit prime to appear as consecutive digits of the natural log base is
    1011000101
    which is 709 in base 10,the 127th prime number which appears in E at position 2^-24 (24 binary digits to the left of the binary point)
    E in base 2 out to this first 10 digit prime sequence is
    10.101101111110000101010001011000101
    Top that for early occurring match!!
    There is not god dam web page at www.1011000101.com
    Dr. Null

  175. Re:Are you joking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Explain how a TWO-DIGIT slashdot id! relates to intelligence or anything else for that matter.

  176. Re:One-liner Mathematica solution to billboard puz by PartyOnTheSand · · Score: 1

    other solution:

    e[d_] = Floor[E*10^d]
    f[d_] = Mod[e[d + 9], 10^10]
    For[i = 0, i 100, i++, x = f[i];
    If[PrimeQ[x],
    Print["found a solution ", x, " at the ", i,
    "th digit after decimal point."]]]

  177. Guess the number and a winner is you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First one to figure out this number a-8bce11916f-c9c4392b72-bab9bb35fc get the job. Quick, there's no second chance!

    1. Re:Guess the number and a winner is you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I win. Where do I pick my prize?

      Send comments to {ratio of rest mass of proton to electron} @gmail.com

      Grady

  178. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Note that it is only illegal under certain circumstances. Basically, you can't use a test which discriminates against some protected group if the test is not directly related to the performance of the job you are hiring for.

  179. Linux Journal by biotic · · Score: 1

    FYI,

    there's also a Google Labs aptitude test / recruiting ad in this month's Linux Journal

  180. Linux Journal by jonnystiph · · Score: 1

    I noticed in my latest copy of Linux Journal there was a "work for google" questionaire. Filled with math and logic puzzles. Seems that google is stretching to find the minds they require. Has any company gone this far to find smart "enough" people before?

    --

    If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank

  181. BigDecimal helps by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1
    Using BigDecimal instead of double really gives me a good number. Now just to calculate the prime. Sure I could have used an already calculated values of e, but that would not have been any fun ;) For those of you interested:
    static BigDecimal ZERO = new BigDecimal("0");
    static BigDecimal ONE = new BigDecimal("1");

    public static BigDecimal factorial ( double n ) {
    if (n == 0) return ONE;
    BigDecimal x = ONE;
    for ( int i=1; i<=n; i++ ) {
    x = x.multiply(new BigDecimal(i));
    }
    return x;
    }

    public static BigDecimal calcE ( double x ) {
    BigDecimal n = ZERO;
    for ( int i=0; i<=x; i++ ) {
    BigDecimal m = ONE.divide(factorial(i),1000,BigDecimal.ROUND_HALF _EVEN);
    n = n.add(m);
    }
    return n;
    }

    public static boolean isPrime ( String strValue ) {
    //not sure whether this is really useful in reducing
    //processing?
    if ( strValue.endsWith("5") || strValue.endsWith("2") ) {
    return false;
    }
    return (new BigInteger(strValue)).isProbablePrime(1);
    }
    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  182. but by geekoid · · Score: 1

    google will know you didn't come from the correct page.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  183. the best thing... by toomanyhandles · · Score: 1

    The best thing for me about this contest, was that I could come up with a solution. do I have time to implement it? no. Do I even have a compiler on my system that I could use? no. But do I relish the fact that my 2+ years in a comp sci degree path provided me with enough math and general knowledge to describe how to do (solve) this? you bet. Even though I do different things now (immunology research) the basic grounding in math and logic is always useful. Thanks google!

  184. Re:One-liner Mathematica solution to billboard puz by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

    I was thinking of writing something along those lines (except I have a history test tomorrow). IntegerDigits may work well/better for what I think you're doing with Floor; it also may avoid needing to calculate N[E] immediately.

    By the way, E works as well as \[ExponentialE] -- it's quicker to type, and also makes more sense in the console (I find the notebook an annoying waste of resources).

  185. This problem is harder than it used to be by billstewart · · Score: 1

    A few years ago, the obvious solution method would have been "Zone transfer .com and look for big strings of number" or "Use a domain name seller's site and look for names starting with 0, 1, 2, 3, .. 9". That would give you a small set of 10-digit domain names, and you'd only need to bother doing math if they'd gotten tricky, e.g. put in a few other numbers, some of which might not be prime, and some of which might not be digits of e, and some of which might be a string of prime numbers from e other than the first such. But it'd still be a much smaller problem.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  186. Let's do the timewarp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.michaelhoover.org/mike/ solved this on July 17th :S WTF is this September nonsense ? (cut, paste and remove spaces. I can't be arsed making a link)

  187. That's why they call it "pseudocode" by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Yes, of course you need to get details like that correct, at least if you're using a language where it's a problem, as opposed to a calculator language like bc / dc.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  188. OLD news by TLouden · · Score: 1

    the first part is easy, everyone has solved that. It's the second stage that get's ya. Still, this is over a month old news.

    --
    -Tim Louden
  189. Common to do offbeat tests by oo_waratah · · Score: 1

    It is quite common to do offbeat tests to see how a person will respond. A common one is describe the process to make coffee. This allows the person to show how they work under pressure, how well they communicate and to a degree how they think. If they sit there dumbstruck guess what happens next time you have a system down for no apparent reason.

    By the way one correct answer was, take team hand over money to waiter receive coffee. This showed thinking outside the square and therefore a perfect candidate for that particular job.

  190. Script by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just write a script storing the number http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/e.1mi l as a string, and then store the first 10 digits as numbers in an array. Constantly factor that, if not incriment. Too bad I'm just too damn lazy to write it myself.

  191. Electronic Arts Hiring Billboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.unix-girl.com/blog/archives/001269.html

    The billboard reads:

    char msg[]={78,111,119,32,72,105,114,105,110,103,0};

  192. Bah, someone else got to it first... by marnanel · · Score: 1

    % dig first10-digitprimefoundinconsecutivedigitsofe.com
    ;; ANSWER SECTION:
    first10-digitprimefoundinconsecutivedigitsofe.com. 86400 IN CNAME pjn.qsrch.net.

    --
    GROGGS: alive and well and living in
  193. mod up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahahahaha, if google needed hackers that'd be a slam-dunk.

  194. Re:One-liner Mathematica solution to billboard puz by brenQ(*) · · Score: 1

    And this...
    Select[Table[Floor[10^10 FractionalPart[N[e\[ExponentialE],j+15] 10^j]],{j,0,200}],PrimeQ]

  195. Not the best hring policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better policy is to not hire the unlucky. Throw half the applications away without even looking at them.

  196. Re:There are clues in the sequence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right, it's sophomoric, not deep math. The 2nd problem is not a mathematical problem, but a psychological puzzle (which tests lateral thinking). It's more about search than math.

    However, there are clues that are left out in the open for people to guess at what the puzzle-writer was getting at - the first two numbers are obviously consecutive digit-sequences from e. So it's got to be related to the decimal expansion of e, and some property of 10-digit sequences in that expansion.

    After that, there's still an infinity of properties that the first 4 sequences share, but they're obviously looking for a parsimonious solution. The summation to 49, though not obvious, will eventually hit somebody who does the "sum of digits" test to check for divisibility by 3 or 9.

    I also make the observation that these are all congruent to 4 (mod 9), so there are several alternative solutions to f(5) that are probably very different. These won't lead to the Google Labs link, so I surmise that Google really wants to hire people who conform to their preconceived notions of what the solution is; not alternative, off-the-beaten-track ideas of what the solution could also be. So that excludes me as well. How about that for a tautology?

  197. Better question to ask? by earlgreen · · Score: 1
    I used to interview candidates for programming positions quite often and one question I liked to ask was: Given a text file of 15,000,000 names, one per line, how would you go about sorting the file alphabetically. How would you build a list of duplicate entries?

    Folks, I'll tell ya, finding the programmer that can actually answer that reasonably well is a challenge. Granted this was mostly during the internet boom, but I was appalled at how bad most of our applicants were.

    1. Re:Better question to ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Given a text file of 15,000,000 names, one per line, how would you go about sorting the file alphabetically."

      That's a pretty vague question. What sort of processor is the computer running? How many processors? How much main memory? How soon do you need the result?

  198. Drat... by pixel_bc · · Score: 1

    Rats... 8675309.com wasn't it.

    "Damn you, Tommy Tutone."

  199. The Google billboard on US Highway 101 in CA by chongo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The temperature of Hell is an old physics geek problem. The calculation tale varies, but they state something to the effect that:
    The temperature of hell is > 388.36K and < 717.87K because under 1 atm pressure, molten Sulphur (".. into the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone ...") is liquid over that range.
    So "TENFOLD HOTTER" would make "extreme makeovers" > 3883.6K and < 7178.7K.

    Note that surface of the Sun is usually estimated to be about 5780K which is similar to the midpoint of the hell temperature range (5531.15K).

    Therefore one might conclude that these "extreme makeovers" might be brilliant ... thus the need for sun glasses. :-)

    I'm sure other interpretations exist.

    --
    chongo (was here) /\oo/\
    1. Re:The Google billboard on US Highway 101 in CA by bob_jenkins · · Score: 1

      My first guess was that it was advertising a cosmetic procedure that was so powerful it would make a pig look sexy. And they showed a picture of the pig to prove it. Unfortunately, it just looks like a pig wearing sunglasses and a scarf, which doesn't give much support to that claim.

  200. Knowing is more important than ever by tentimestwenty · · Score: 1

    I disagree that you never had to know anything. In fact, I would propose that most people prior to the 1960s were extremely knowledgeable and could make far more intuitive and quick judgement than most people today who require the quick ability to look things up. The difference is that a good base of knowledge is really "history" so you can place your knowledge amongst the tested knowledge of time. You may know less, but everything you learn afterwards is put in context. In a social sense, this allows knowledge to be cumulative and is especially important when viewed in the light of social organization and awareness. Having infinite access to quick facts and opinions to a large degree undermines the legitimacy of time tested rote knowledge. People today may have more of the quick answers to meaningless facts, but they don't realize that many of the important things that happen in life and society were figured out hundreds or thousands of years ago. In many ways, the access to limitless information has just separated people by removing the need for concise oral and written history.

  201. Would it be funny by egad_man · · Score: 1

    If the first guy to the second site changed the password on everybody?

    --
    Hmmm, I have 5 mod pts, its time to metamod, and on top of that I have to meta-metamod? When do I get to read slashdot?
  202. Someone should MOD the parent UP as FUNNY! by Schwarzchild · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's really quite funny especially if you read the reply by the grandparent's poster.

    --

    "sweet dreams are made of this..."

  203. Google Lab fails too by sammyo · · Score: 1

    I was deeply sincerely hoping that this trick at Google labs would give a bit of insight: Google Sets attempt But no, no results, nada, nothing.

    fe fi fo foo

  204. googles job .com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why is this only now on /.?
    its been around for atleast a few months now. . .

  205. I thought of working for Google by ESqVIP · · Score: 0
    ...but after I found the prime-number-URL... c'mon. That's HTML 3.2.

    I can't work on a place that produces such outdated code. What might their products look like? '98 stuff? I have my dignity!

  206. bland logical positivists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these kinds of problems certainly don't lend themselves to believing the formulator is more than sophomoric; it takes just a few minutes to solve the 2nd sequence problem given a table of the digits of e and a bit of thought. Really smart people always answer 0 to all sequence completion problems, however, because they are clear on the irrationality of answering any particular way to an abduction problem. But they don't teach Kripke or Kolmogorov at Stanford, apparently...

  207. Re:Why? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

    Google would have to show in court that searching for prime numbers was part of the work that these employees would be expected to do on the job

    They expect them to do some programming to find the solution. And programming is part of their work.

  208. the complete answer :( by BigBadDude · · Score: 1


    took me 15 minutes to break it. lets see if the lameness filter likes it...

    NOTE: include gmp.h and stdio.h, link with gml
    const int LEN = 10, PREC = 30000, LIMIT = 10000;

    void approx(mpf_t out, int n) {
    mpf_t tmp1;
    mpf_init(tmp1);
    mpf_set_d(out, 1.0);
    mpf_set_d(tmp1, 1.0);
    for(int i = 1; i 4) return;
    }
    }
    }

    int main() {

    mpf_set_default_prec(PREC);
    mpf_t a;
    mpf_init(a);
    approx(a, LIMIT);

    char buffer[10240], *input = buffer;
    gmp_sprintf(input, "%.10220Ff", a);
    input[1] = input[0]; input++;
    test1(input); // test2(input);
    test3(input);
    return 0;
    }

    1. Re:the complete answer :( by BigBadDude · · Score: 1

      damn lameness filter. i want to be lame, dont you get it??

      #include <gmp.h>
      #include <stdio.h>
      const int LEN = 10, PREC = 30000, LIMIT = 10000;

      void approx(mpf_t out, int n) {
      mpf_t tmp1;
      mpf_init(tmp1);
      mpf_set_d(out, 1.0);
      mpf_set_d(tmp1, 1.0);
      for(int i = 1; i < n; i++) {
      mpf_div_ui(tmp1, tmp1, i);
      mpf_add(out, out, tmp1);
      }
      mpf_clear(tmp1);
      }
      void test1(const char *num) {
      int len = strlen(num);
      char buffer[LEN + 1];
      for(int i = 0; i < len - LEN; i++) {
      strncpy(buffer, num + i, LEN);
      buffer[LEN] = '\0';
      mpz_t n;
      mpz_init_set_str(n , buffer, 10);
      if( mpz_probab_prime_p(n, 10)) {
      gmp_printf("%Zd is a prime!\n", n);
      return;
      }}}
      int sum(const char *str) {
      int ret = 0;
      while(*str) {
      ret += (*str - '0');
      str++;
      }
      return ret;}
      void test3(const char *str) {
      int x = sum("7182818284");
      int len = strlen(str);
      char buffer[10 + 1];
      int j = 0;
      for(int i = 0; i < len - LEN; i++) {
      strncpy(buffer, str + i, LEN);
      buffer[LEN] = 0;
      if(sum(buffer)== x) {
      printf("%d. %s\n", ++j, buffer);
      if(j > 4) return;
      }}}

      int main() {
      mpf_set_default_prec(PREC);
      mpf_t a;
      mpf_init(a);
      approx(a, LIMIT);
      char buffer[10240], *input = buffer;
      gmp_sprintf(input, "%.10220Ff", a);
      input[1] = input[0]; input++;
      test1(input); // test2(input);
      test3(input);
      return 0;}

  209. Parkinson's Law by dcs · · Score: 1

    The most interesting thing is that this is precisely the technique suggested in the 1957 book "Parkinson's Law".

    I'm not sure the original was serious, though... :-)

    --
    (8-DCS)
  210. Re:Are you joking? by pez · · Score: 1

    You've got to be kidding... a 2-digit ID for $115? That's absurd ;-)

    I recently saw someone post with a 1-digit ID... I think it was #7 or something. I wonder how many of us with IDs 100 are still using the site legitimately from the beginning (back in the Chips & Dips days).....

  211. Mesa so smartsa by danila · · Score: 0

    I think I am supposed to be excited about the ad, about some people working in Google, about google HR people being oh so smart... But I am not, actually I think it's rather silly.

    The problems that Google faces are not ones to be solved by genius mathematicians/engineers. Well, some of them may be, but most of the improvements in search will probably come from hard and pretty uninspired work. Google doesn't seem to realise this (or should I say "doesn't agree with this"), and I think it's their big mistake.

    P.S. I definitely can realise how fun working with very smart people in a very comfortable environment can be, I just don't think it makes much sense for Google.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  212. Heh by mfh · · Score: 1

    You've got to be kidding... a 2-digit ID for $115? That's absurd ;-)

    Maybe for you. But I wanted a piece of slashdot history and a beta acct was worth the money, IMHO. It was a crazy birthday present to myself. Yes it's wacky but think about it pez... you have a two digit uid. If you wouldn't sell it for any price, it's gotta have some value. If not, send over your uname & pass and I'll thank you kindly.

    I recently saw someone post with a 1-digit ID... I think it was #7 or something. I wonder how many of us with IDs 100 are still using the site legitimately from the beginning (back in the Chips & Dips days).....

    Damn I wish I had seen that. As for who is still left from the beginning -- many were likley scared off by trolls...

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  213. Stupid Google by Hockney+Twang · · Score: 1

    That site isn't even registered by them.

  214. Google does evil everyday they hire from Stanford by edgedmurasame · · Score: 2

    Well, it probably hurt that you werent some uppity Stanfordite. No wonder you got kicked out. It's one thing to have preference as a person to their college, it's another to base your entire company around the people from there and the practices of said university. Given how Google was, it's no surprise we have some of their side jobs as they are. Uppity people in need of a constant humbling.

    --
    "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
  215. Google Labs Aptitude Test by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

    In the latest issue of Linux Journal Google has included a "Google Labs Aptitude Test". I've scanned the test and posted the images on my website. Some really odd and interesting questions. By the way, an icosahedron is a 20-sided polygon.

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)