How is it that nobody has mentioned that this is just the sort of thing to help launch Google Me? Google needs someone on their social network to bring people over, and as many people as like playing these social games, it won't be that hard to get people onto Google Me from using this.
So between Zynga leaving Facebook but people loving the games and people being upset with Facebook, now's the perfect time for Google to make deals to get people onto their social network.
And given THAT problem, I would have a different response.
TBH: I did google it, and I did come across many posts the same as MrZ's, but I didn't really see one like this (I also didn't look really hard) but I still don't get how people can bastardize a problem, ask the bastard one and expect the proper response, just because they know the original problem. Makes for a great 'in-joke' but a terrible logic problem.
I'm sorry but clarifying in the second post doesn't explain a supposed initial understanding that there be only two laps. That was my question. After you clarified it still tookan explanation from a math major using key terminology to explain why this example was valid. He also saw both points. However, I don't find the question to have an inherent hard limit. Even after explanation. More of a pun.
And I totally get how the gut reaction is wrong, so that part you can drop explaining. Shall we agree to disagree?
Yeah, I had to have non-asynchronous convo with my math-degree toting friend to figure it out. The problem is "exactly two laps, no more"...
Then there's no way to get the velocity up to 60MPH over two laps, because you've wasted the whole time on the first lap. If the requirement gets lifted to allow more than two laps, then it's a solvable problem.
So how is it again that the "exactly two laps" requirement is inherent in the problem? I'm still lost on that one.
Ah-ha, saying "across both laps" gives me a semi-firm boundary. However, it's still track distance in time. It has to be. If the only boundary is to do two laps and average 60 given 30 on the first track, you MUST bound on time as well.
Look, if you can take as long as you want, you can always vary the speed required. If you can only take two minutes for this task (given the initial question) then you can only do the one lap. Consider drawing a simple cubic function y=x^3. You can draw a straight line on the page at roughly the right points and say the range of the graph is -10,000,000,000,000 to 10,000,000,000,000 on each axis and nobody can question that there's a curve in the middle. And if you claim the range is -.01 to.01 on each axis, you can draw a line roughly at y=-x and nobody can really question the curve exists, but they don't see the whole graph. Now what if I draw a number line and put a point and tell you that is the value of Y at X = 3; You can't argue, if it's labeled 3 on the number line, because technically that is X at 3. You can argue you don't know the value of Y, but I could label the line as Y = 27, thus giving you the precise answer at that spot. However, I've not defined the graph in two dimensions. Only in one dimension. Your initial question had no boundaries, your addendum adds one dimension. The problem requires two dimensions, because you gave Miles Per Hour.
By the same token, every problem must have realistic bounds. So when you say "well just pretend I gave the requirements of 2 laps and 2 minutes, given 1 mile track and 30MPH first lap" then I say "well pretend I gave the requirements of 60 laps and 60 minutes, given 1 mile track and 30MPH first lap".
Two conditions (miles, hours), two boundaries must exist.
But I see why you think a 1 mile track is a red herring. Because you assume a 2 minute boundary as well. I see no such boundaries.
I think this is all about what the article partially discusses anyways. What people assume when they read a problem.
Ok, I give up. I understand the answer is supposed to be that traveling 30MPH means 1 lap takes 2 minutes, but driving 2 laps averaged at 60MPH means 2 minutes drive time, so technically he has no time to complete the second lap, HOWEVER this makes no sense in the bounds of the original question.
He only needs one more minute to complete the second lap (technically just 40 seconds) so my question is, should the original question not include the 2 minute rule? Because given an hour, it's possible to travel fast enough to get ahead of the time limit and still get to the MPH average requested. (specifically 95 miles per hour for all remaining 59 laps will average to just over 60MPH and still be 60 miles)
So in the absence of a time limit on the original question, the expected answer is bunk. Or is my math horribly flawed in some basic way?
and while accurate, for most people this equates to no disks larger than 2TB... just sayin...
We all seem to think that we live in this little tech bubble that nobody uses tech that isn't also inside the bubble (I know because I do it too from time to time) but I counter it by saying to myself "what would my mom think? what would my dad think?"
Yeah, to my dad (forget me mum, she barely knows the HDD exists, for her an iPad is almost ideal) a drive is a partition and a partition is the drive...
a) it takes days to make chemicals, especially when a small lab can whip some up for a demo in days...
b) it takes days to make hundreds of thousands of square yards of cloth
c) it takes apparently a month for BP to get serious about saving the Gulf with any kind of straight face
d) yes, there are no existing stockpiles of this cloth, nobody needed it before now, and had rig management listened to the crews on the rig and designers back home and had they followed safety protocol, none of this would have happened, as evidenced by the testimony that has come out so far.
So, what were you saying? None exists "right now" in quantity? Could we have some tomorrow? Will the oil still be causing a problem tomorrow? Could this save most of Florida from having the same problems as LA? How is it too late to start saving the coast? Because we can't save all of it?
I think you're too worried about the damage that has been done, and not looking to contain the further damage that will be done. I'm furious about both, but only one can be prevented, the other must be saved. This won't save the damaged coast, it'll prevent more coast from being hit.
It was probably considered by a flunky, but turned down by someone with more years of experience because "it's not likely to be a problem"...
FSM knows I've come across that several times, where I'll suggest XYZ, only to have a senior person say "nah, 'cos everybody either ABC's, DEF's, or LMN's, but nobody has ever mentioned or asked for an XYZ" only to have a customer email a month later with "we've noticed there's no XYZ" and then have that email end up in my inbox "FYI"... from the senior person.
Yes, but it's the upstream that's important for running things like VNC or for uploading files, and my upstream SUCKS.
Same works for video conferencing. If you can't get the video ONTO the pipe, the other end can't get it any faster. And there's always overhead for two way communication, so the busier the household, the less room there is for either overhead or data, and generally it's the data that suffers.
So yeah, the DSL speed is tantamount to using the internet for anything useful. What were you saying again? Oh yeah, must be nice to live in a town of more than 300 residents... (Yes, I got myself into the mess, but I wouldn't mind so much if I could subsidize the cost of the telco to upgrade their own equipment voluntarily)
But you're rather proving my point. There's no reason for federal standards in this case, per-se, because everyone that I've ever noticed sets things to CA standards. So what's the incentive to set things to something less than the CA standards? Less overall market to sell to.
I get that if there's NO Federal standard that there will either be a standard set for every market or everyone will independently set their own standards. But it's easier for, e.g. Mississippi, to set a requirement that products match CA standards.
c'mon mcgrew:p ~ We're deciding between those two explicit choices! I would prefer to go quietly in my sleep when I'm like 70-80. I wanna get out of the way sooner, but not that soon.
It's still merely open to interpretation, and I think it would be the general welfare of ALL states, not just some states.
My interpretation of the intent is that the General Welfare of the United States being in the same line as Common Defense is that General Welfare is intended: Border defenses. Not Social Security.
However, as may be, your interpretation is likely different from mine. Hence the reason to have MANY people collaborate on a meaning, not to accept one man's meaning.
How much of your monthly internet bill are you willing to pay in order to see advertisements?
While I totally get your point, I should just point out that the figure here is something like 100%. Apparently.
Unless you have an internet service at the moment that is free in all aspects. In which case, can I come live with you?
But I totally get your point, and I agree, having to pay by the byte I'm not gonna wanna see scads of ads. I see mobile proxies becoming more popular and prevalent. Maybe that's a good site business to get into, eh?
Yeah, but which would you prefer to die from? Cancer or AIDS? I would prefer to die from cancer. It's like having a sworn enemy. Versus AIDS you might die at the slightest thing, given the circumstances.
So, while the "joke" was indeed insensitive, I still stand by my choice. I would prefer cancer over AIDS.
Not sure who the AC was that posted after me, and I feel really bad for him, but I don't think he considered what I considered before getting upset with me. I also reckon Aeternitas827 was a bit out of line.
Slashdot Mirror
Then take your troll ass to android
I did read the whole post, we just have a disagreement on what it takes to have a "usable" internet connection.
I'm glad that you have a 700k line, I have a 1.5M line, and I hate it.
I don't know anyone on a 33k line, cos I call that dialup, not DSL.
1000kbits is crap. Give me 4000kbits, PLEASE!
The problem is the telcos have no competition to spur innovation. As you said, the copper is already there...
And yet here you are posting!
At least the trains ran on time in Italy eh?
Nice reference, altho I think rather niche. Ah well.
How is it that nobody has mentioned that this is just the sort of thing to help launch Google Me? Google needs someone on their social network to bring people over, and as many people as like playing these social games, it won't be that hard to get people onto Google Me from using this.
So between Zynga leaving Facebook but people loving the games and people being upset with Facebook, now's the perfect time for Google to make deals to get people onto their social network.
AAPL
This.
Seriously.
Obviously I would blame the federal government :p
Ok, that was too easy, I'm gonna stand back and watch the flame war grow right off the very trail of this post :p
No, wait, I blame the robber. He should've set the Evil Bit and then I would've known to deny him entry...
No wait, I blame the lock, because
Hold on, I should probably blame myself, for having anything I considered my own ...
Oh wait, now we're back to blaming the federal gov't...
Oh, I give up! Take it all!!!
(Que mods who don't recognize a joke and que trolls who don't recognize this is not a troll-starting-post)
And given THAT problem, I would have a different response.
TBH: I did google it, and I did come across many posts the same as MrZ's, but I didn't really see one like this (I also didn't look really hard) but I still don't get how people can bastardize a problem, ask the bastard one and expect the proper response, just because they know the original problem. Makes for a great 'in-joke' but a terrible logic problem.
Thanks again AC
I'm sorry but clarifying in the second post doesn't explain a supposed initial understanding that there be only two laps. That was my question. After you clarified it still tookan explanation from a math major using key terminology to explain why this example was valid. He also saw both points. However, I don't find the question to have an inherent hard limit. Even after explanation. More of a pun.
And I totally get how the gut reaction is wrong, so that part you can drop explaining. Shall we agree to disagree?
Yeah, I had to have non-asynchronous convo with my math-degree toting friend to figure it out. The problem is "exactly two laps, no more"...
Then there's no way to get the velocity up to 60MPH over two laps, because you've wasted the whole time on the first lap. If the requirement gets lifted to allow more than two laps, then it's a solvable problem.
So how is it again that the "exactly two laps" requirement is inherent in the problem? I'm still lost on that one.
Ah-ha, saying "across both laps" gives me a semi-firm boundary. However, it's still track distance in time. It has to be. If the only boundary is to do two laps and average 60 given 30 on the first track, you MUST bound on time as well.
Look, if you can take as long as you want, you can always vary the speed required. If you can only take two minutes for this task (given the initial question) then you can only do the one lap. Consider drawing a simple cubic function y=x^3. You can draw a straight line on the page at roughly the right points and say the range of the graph is -10,000,000,000,000 to 10,000,000,000,000 on each axis and nobody can question that there's a curve in the middle. And if you claim the range is -.01 to .01 on each axis, you can draw a line roughly at y=-x and nobody can really question the curve exists, but they don't see the whole graph. Now what if I draw a number line and put a point and tell you that is the value of Y at X = 3; You can't argue, if it's labeled 3 on the number line, because technically that is X at 3. You can argue you don't know the value of Y, but I could label the line as Y = 27, thus giving you the precise answer at that spot. However, I've not defined the graph in two dimensions. Only in one dimension. Your initial question had no boundaries, your addendum adds one dimension. The problem requires two dimensions, because you gave Miles Per Hour.
By the same token, every problem must have realistic bounds. So when you say "well just pretend I gave the requirements of 2 laps and 2 minutes, given 1 mile track and 30MPH first lap" then I say "well pretend I gave the requirements of 60 laps and 60 minutes, given 1 mile track and 30MPH first lap".
Two conditions (miles, hours), two boundaries must exist.
But I see why you think a 1 mile track is a red herring. Because you assume a 2 minute boundary as well. I see no such boundaries.
I think this is all about what the article partially discusses anyways. What people assume when they read a problem.
Ok, I give up. I understand the answer is supposed to be that traveling 30MPH means 1 lap takes 2 minutes, but driving 2 laps averaged at 60MPH means 2 minutes drive time, so technically he has no time to complete the second lap, HOWEVER this makes no sense in the bounds of the original question.
He only needs one more minute to complete the second lap (technically just 40 seconds) so my question is, should the original question not include the 2 minute rule? Because given an hour, it's possible to travel fast enough to get ahead of the time limit and still get to the MPH average requested. (specifically 95 miles per hour for all remaining 59 laps will average to just over 60MPH and still be 60 miles)
So in the absence of a time limit on the original question, the expected answer is bunk. Or is my math horribly flawed in some basic way?
and while accurate, for most people this equates to no disks larger than 2TB ... just sayin...
We all seem to think that we live in this little tech bubble that nobody uses tech that isn't also inside the bubble (I know because I do it too from time to time) but I counter it by saying to myself "what would my mom think? what would my dad think?"
Yeah, to my dad (forget me mum, she barely knows the HDD exists, for her an iPad is almost ideal) a drive is a partition and a partition is the drive...
As someone else mentioned below,
a) it takes days to make chemicals, especially when a small lab can whip some up for a demo in days...
b) it takes days to make hundreds of thousands of square yards of cloth
c) it takes apparently a month for BP to get serious about saving the Gulf with any kind of straight face
d) yes, there are no existing stockpiles of this cloth, nobody needed it before now, and had rig management listened to the crews on the rig and designers back home and had they followed safety protocol, none of this would have happened, as evidenced by the testimony that has come out so far.
So, what were you saying? None exists "right now" in quantity? Could we have some tomorrow? Will the oil still be causing a problem tomorrow? Could this save most of Florida from having the same problems as LA? How is it too late to start saving the coast? Because we can't save all of it?
I think you're too worried about the damage that has been done, and not looking to contain the further damage that will be done. I'm furious about both, but only one can be prevented, the other must be saved. This won't save the damaged coast, it'll prevent more coast from being hit.
It was probably considered by a flunky, but turned down by someone with more years of experience because "it's not likely to be a problem"...
FSM knows I've come across that several times, where I'll suggest XYZ, only to have a senior person say "nah, 'cos everybody either ABC's, DEF's, or LMN's, but nobody has ever mentioned or asked for an XYZ" only to have a customer email a month later with "we've noticed there's no XYZ" and then have that email end up in my inbox "FYI"... from the senior person.
Sounds made up? I wish!
according to TFS you coat a common cloth with a particular chemical... sounds ready made to me.
I believe the purpose was to troll...
Yes, but it's the upstream that's important for running things like VNC or for uploading files, and my upstream SUCKS.
Same works for video conferencing. If you can't get the video ONTO the pipe, the other end can't get it any faster. And there's always overhead for two way communication, so the busier the household, the less room there is for either overhead or data, and generally it's the data that suffers.
So yeah, the DSL speed is tantamount to using the internet for anything useful. What were you saying again? Oh yeah, must be nice to live in a town of more than 300 residents... (Yes, I got myself into the mess, but I wouldn't mind so much if I could subsidize the cost of the telco to upgrade their own equipment voluntarily)
But you're rather proving my point. There's no reason for federal standards in this case, per-se, because everyone that I've ever noticed sets things to CA standards. So what's the incentive to set things to something less than the CA standards? Less overall market to sell to.
I get that if there's NO Federal standard that there will either be a standard set for every market or everyone will independently set their own standards. But it's easier for, e.g. Mississippi, to set a requirement that products match CA standards.
c'mon mcgrew :p ~ We're deciding between those two explicit choices! I would prefer to go quietly in my sleep when I'm like 70-80. I wanna get out of the way sooner, but not that soon.
It's still merely open to interpretation, and I think it would be the general welfare of ALL states, not just some states.
My interpretation of the intent is that the General Welfare of the United States being in the same line as Common Defense is that General Welfare is intended: Border defenses. Not Social Security.
However, as may be, your interpretation is likely different from mine. Hence the reason to have MANY people collaborate on a meaning, not to accept one man's meaning.
PS: Point taken.
How much of your monthly internet bill are you willing to pay in order to see advertisements?
While I totally get your point, I should just point out that the figure here is something like 100%. Apparently.
Unless you have an internet service at the moment that is free in all aspects. In which case, can I come live with you?
But I totally get your point, and I agree, having to pay by the byte I'm not gonna wanna see scads of ads. I see mobile proxies becoming more popular and prevalent. Maybe that's a good site business to get into, eh?
Yeah, but which would you prefer to die from? Cancer or AIDS? I would prefer to die from cancer. It's like having a sworn enemy. Versus AIDS you might die at the slightest thing, given the circumstances.
So, while the "joke" was indeed insensitive, I still stand by my choice. I would prefer cancer over AIDS.
Not sure who the AC was that posted after me, and I feel really bad for him, but I don't think he considered what I considered before getting upset with me. I also reckon Aeternitas827 was a bit out of line.