the problem is the puzzle author added some 'fixups' which cause problems:
Firstly the tourist. In the case of more than 1 red eye the tourist adds no extra information. It seems to have been added to fixup the single red eye case.
Secondly the justification for the tourist was that everyone was living happily until he came along. Again, do your test with 2 red eyed monks but no tourist. With or without the tourist they have to kill themselves, unless you say that at the population the monks were at, there is so little pressure to kill yourself that they were happy. i.e. N was so long it nobody could be bothered to keep track. But that same condition exists AFTER the tourist tells them.
Then there was the midnight thing. If they don't kill themselves in synchronoisation the puzzle falls apart. Hence the 'kill yourself at midnight' fixup was added.
Perhaps he would have been better if he had made the puzzle:
A group of mixed red-eye'd brown eye'd monks discover a sacred scroll. The scroll says that red-eye'd monks must take the one sacred sword and kill themselves within the day....stuff about no mirrors, and no talking... There are more than one monk with red eyes. What happens and why?
Answer. Eventually all red eyed monk kills himself.
Reason: Only one person can kill themselves at a time courtesy of the single sword, there is 1 unit more pressure to kill yourself if you have red eyes than brown eyes because you can see one less red eyed person than a brown eye'd person. So red eyes will tend to kill themselves when they see no other red eye kill themselves. At worst no later than N days. The final red eyed monk kills himself because the second from final red-eyed monk took an extra day too long to kill himself. Indicating that he saw another red eye monk which must be the final one.
I thought he didn't know and was revealing doors at random to confirm whether you win or lose.
Something like "Contestant, you chose door C, so lets see what was behind door A, a goat, (audience goes phew), now are you sure you don't want to switch?"
If he always chooses a door with a goat behind it first, then there is no suspense. Hence it made sense to me that he was choosing at random between the two remaining doors.
But it also means he will rule out situations where the price is behind the first door he reveals because then you don't get the opportunity to switch. Then it becomes straight 50-50.
So now I understand why there was such a fuss with both sides adamant they were correct.
now I understand where the difference between the two groups is.
"Monty then counters by showing you one of the doors with a goat behind it and asks you if you would like to keep the door you chose"
In my interpretation, he chooses a door, that door happens to have a goat behind it. In other instances it might have the prize behind it.
But in the greylabyrinth.com interpretation, he always chooses to reveal a door with a bad prize between the remaining two doors. (i.e. he has pre-knowledge and chooses a suitable door)
No wonder each group of mathematicians argues to the death about this. Its an English puzzle not a maths one!
The monks 'A's desire to kill himself in case he has red eyes is so strong that when C & B don't kill themselves, he eventually assumes there must be someone else with red eyes. Therefore he kills himself.
Oh wait that doesn't make sense, if it did they would kill themselves before the tourist came along, because he told them something everyone already knew. They knew there were monks with red eyes, they knew nobody was killing themselves and they knew already that there was at least one of the them with red eyes. So the tourist simply told them what they already knew.
So suppose you were in an interview and asked this question and you answered the way I just did. Would I get the job?
"Sticking to the same routine (like always switch) will drop your chances."
Well erm, thats a nice point of view Mr Interviewer and I respect and fully support your out-of-the-box thinking style and look forward to working here....
But there's other places where you can do this. Just north of the south pole (1.16 miles north of the south pole). You walk one mile south. Now if you walk one mile east you will make a full circle of the global. Now walk one mile north - you're back at the start.
You shoot a bear there, since there aren't any real bears at the south pole, it must be the teddy bear you took to keep you company.
Hence its light brown, because thats the conventional colour for teddy bears.:->
Read this one, it was shown in the Mail on Sunday Newspaper in the UK and the mail incorrectly said you should switch and your chances would be better if you switched. Teachers, clear thinkers etc wrote to them but they stood by their position that you should switch and your chances would be better if you switched.
"You are a contestant on Monty Hall's game show. You are presented with three doors: 1, 2, and 3. One of the doors has a million dollars behind it. The other two have goats behind them. You do not know ahead of time what is behind any of the doors. Monty asks you to choose a door. You pick one of the doors and announce it. Monty then counters by showing you one of the doors with a goat behind it and asks you if you would like to keep the door you chose, or switch to the other unknown door. Should you switch? Explain why. What is the probability if you don't switch? What is the probability if you do? "
The Mail said 'yes you always switch', because you had a 33% chance of being right and 66% chance of it being behind the other 2 doors. After they reveal one of the other 2 doors, the other door has a 66% chance of being the money. Your door only has a 33% chance hence you should switch.
Of course thats nonsense, when he revealed the door he changed the probabilities by reducing the number of options. So of course they are not 66%/33%, they are now 50-50. So there is no advantage to changing.
So here's the dilema:
If you went for an interview with the Mail on Sunday and gave the correct answer you will not get the job, if you give the incorrect answer you will get the job.
Do you give the correct answer or not?
Isn't interviews about toadying up to the interviewer behind the desk regardless of their mental abilities?
They've probably used aggressive power saving on the chip to save every electron but at the expense of performance.
Thats not such a bad thing, most of these things run address books and sync to email. The battery is the real problem with them, not the fact it can't encode video streams!
Sure they'll get a few complaints, but nothing like the slating they've been getting for the battery life problem.
"The FBI wants call-identifying information to include....all the digits dialed during a phone call -- obtained through a process known as "dialed-digit extraction."
You realise they're giving themselves powers to obtain all your telephone pin numbers.
If they have the pin numbers, there is no need to obtain a warrant to search a bank account, you could just dial the bank and use the pin numbers. There are no checks possible to this, the FBI agent could just walk to any phone booth and do this. At the moment they need a warrant to obtain a wire tap. But with the pin numbers anyone could dial an answer-phone and listen to the answering machine messages.
Why is the FBI so frightened of answering to the courts? All they have to do is convince a judge that the suspect *might* be involved in criminal activities.
KPNQwest was in debt. It offered a high yield bond in Jan 2001 to fund its activities based on predicted earnings. Those earnings grew too slowly. They couldn't pay for the bonds.
Then things got much worse, they had to try frantic trimming of the fat and that cost big bucks too. They had some 50 million Euros costs a quarter alone on that.
Servicing that debt cost big bucks. Now they're bankrupt, another telecoms company will buy the assets debt free.
THIS MEANS A CHEAP FIBRE NETWORK ACROSS EUROPE!
Meanwhile, the US has basically signed up to legalised monopolies run by the baby bells. You guys can expect to be gouged.
So they would know which DVD was the source, but unless they also linked every DVD to the owner, they couldn't tell who you are.
So the aim must be to track people aswell based on the copies they buy. Perhaps they will get MS to put add a feature that reports the ID of any DVD inserted into a Computer.
We should call on the EU to block the privacy invasion caused by electronically tagging DVD in this manner.
I've listen to endless naysayers trying to talk down the Euro, there has been hard attacks on it on the currency markets. Yet there was no Soros like success. Every attempt to break it failed.
Its held firm for 3 years now. The inter-Europe exchange rates have all held firm, no Euro zone country has had to adjust its Euro exchange rate and thats despite the worldwide economic downturn.
ITS A BIG SUCCESS.
Give up naysayers - you lost.
Re:Google NOT the most Popular Search engine
on
Google Recaps 2001
·
· Score: 1
Yahoo USE google as their search engine in a lot of languages (e.g. the German version uses Google).
Microsoft said they would get 600,000-800,000 units out by delaying Japanese shipments.
(see story below). This was quite a recent announcement.
I'm just not convinced they sold out, even the story quoting dealers who had sold out on the first weekend said 30% still had stock of XBox. This doesn't seem like the same sell out that PS2 achieved. If they only got 300k out then where are the other 300k-500k units?
Strikes me the reception was pretty muted, kindof - 'yeh XBox is quite a nice PC for the money' which doesn't exactly stirr my spending juices.
So this Nintendo story rings true, but take it with a pinch of salt till we see the Xmas sales figures.
Man meets alien,
Alien tries to kill man,
Man understands and empathises with Alien in a non confrontational way.
Alien says, Okey Dokey, you good man, me not kill you.
How is this any less formulaic than Soap? Its not even realistic, on Earth we are top of the food chain, anything above us in the food chain has been hunted to extinction. We didn't negotiate peaceful coexistance with tigers, they were a threat to us, SO WE SHOT THEM.
In space why wouldn't aliens see us as food or enemy or danger?
Also why should the NG/V/DS9 people eat replicator food? Why not go out and have a nice Martian rock skipper BBQ?
From the sound of it this man was responsible for the touchy feely crud and I for one am not sorry to see him go.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite,
...stuff about no mirrors, and no talking...
the problem is the puzzle author added some 'fixups' which cause problems:
Firstly the tourist. In the case of more than 1 red eye the tourist adds no extra information. It seems to have been added to fixup the single red eye case.
Secondly the justification for the tourist was that everyone was living happily until he came along. Again, do your test with 2 red eyed monks but no tourist.
With or without the tourist they have to kill themselves, unless you say that at the population the monks were at, there is so little pressure to kill yourself that they were happy. i.e. N was so long it nobody could be bothered to keep track.
But that same condition exists AFTER the tourist tells them.
Then there was the midnight thing. If they don't kill themselves in synchronoisation the puzzle falls apart. Hence the 'kill yourself at midnight' fixup was added.
Perhaps he would have been better if he had made the puzzle:
A group of mixed red-eye'd brown eye'd monks discover a sacred scroll. The scroll says that red-eye'd monks must take the one sacred sword and kill themselves within the day.
There are more than one monk with red eyes.
What happens and why?
Answer. Eventually all red eyed monk kills himself.
Reason:
Only one person can kill themselves at a time courtesy of the single sword,
there is 1 unit more pressure to kill yourself if you have red eyes than brown eyes because you can see one less red eyed person than a brown eye'd person.
So red eyes will tend to kill themselves when they see no other red eye kill themselves. At worst no later than N days.
The final red eyed monk kills himself because the second from final red-eyed monk took an extra day too long to kill himself. Indicating that he saw another red eye monk which must be the final one.
That I think works.
I thought he didn't know and was revealing doors at random to confirm whether you win or lose.
Something like
"Contestant, you chose door C, so lets see what was behind door A, a goat, (audience goes phew), now are you sure you don't want to switch?"
If he always chooses a door with a goat behind it first, then there is no suspense. Hence it made sense to me that he was choosing at random between the two remaining doors.
But it also means he will rule out situations where the price is behind the first door he reveals because then you don't get the opportunity to switch. Then it becomes straight 50-50.
So now I understand why there was such a fuss with both sides adamant they were correct.
If there is more than one person, the tourist tells them nothing they don't already know.
Since they already knew there was at least one person in the group with red eyes and lived without any suicides, he's changed nothing.
I think it falls apart at 3 red eyed people.
Each can see 2 other red eyed people, each waiting for the other to commit suicide.
now I understand where the difference between the two groups is.
"Monty then counters by showing you one of the doors with a goat behind it and asks you if you would like to keep the door you chose"
In my interpretation, he chooses a door, that door happens to have a goat behind it. In other instances it might have the prize behind it.
But in the greylabyrinth.com interpretation, he always chooses to reveal a door with a bad prize between the remaining two doors. (i.e. he has pre-knowledge and chooses a suitable door)
No wonder each group of mathematicians argues to the death about this. Its an English puzzle not a maths one!
Oh, never mind, I see now.
The monks 'A's desire to kill himself in case he has red eyes is so strong that when C & B don't kill themselves, he eventually assumes there must be someone else with red eyes. Therefore he kills himself.
Oh wait that doesn't make sense, if it did they would kill themselves before the tourist came along, because he told them something everyone already knew.
They knew there were monks with red eyes, they knew nobody was killing themselves and they knew already that there was at least one of the them with red eyes. So the tourist simply told them what they already knew.
So suppose you were in an interview and asked this question and you answered the way I just did. Would I get the job?
Now suppose there are 3 red eyed monks.
A B and C
At midnight nobody kills themself.
A thinks B isn't killing himself because of C
A thinks C isn't killing himself because of B
C thinks A isn't killing himself because of B.
C thinks B isn't killing himself because of A
B thinks A isn't killing himself because of C
B thinks C isn't killing himself because of A
So they live happily together.
Now I know that this must have been looked at deeply and not just my twenty seconds of late afternoon brain cells.
So what did I miss?
"Sticking to the same routine (like always switch) will drop your chances."
Well erm, thats a nice point of view Mr Interviewer and I respect and fully support your out-of-the-box thinking style and look forward to working here....
Well yeh, Northpole = white polar bear.
:->
But there's other places where you can do this.
Just north of the south pole (1.16 miles north of the south pole).
You walk one mile south. Now if you walk one mile east you will make a full circle of the global. Now walk one mile north - you're back at the start.
You shoot a bear there, since there aren't any real bears at the south pole, it must be the teddy bear you took to keep you company.
Hence its light brown, because thats the conventional colour for teddy bears.
Read this one, it was shown in the Mail on Sunday Newspaper in the UK and the mail incorrectly said you should switch and your chances would be better if you switched. Teachers, clear thinkers etc wrote to them but they stood by their position that you should switch and your chances would be better if you switched.
"You are a contestant on Monty Hall's game show. You are presented with three doors: 1, 2, and 3. One of the doors has a million dollars behind it. The other two have goats behind them. You do not know ahead of time what is behind any of the doors. Monty asks you to choose a door. You pick one of the doors and announce it. Monty then counters by showing you one of the doors with a goat behind it and asks you if you would like to keep the door you chose, or switch to the other unknown door. Should you switch? Explain why. What is the probability if you don't switch? What is the probability if you do? "
The Mail said 'yes you always switch', because you had a 33% chance of being right and 66% chance of it being behind the other 2 doors. After they reveal one of the other 2 doors, the other door has a 66% chance of being the money. Your door only has a 33% chance hence you should switch.
Of course thats nonsense, when he revealed the door he changed the probabilities by reducing the number of options. So of course they are not 66%/33%, they are now 50-50. So there is no advantage to changing.
So here's the dilema:
If you went for an interview with the Mail on Sunday and gave the correct answer you will not get the job, if you give the incorrect answer you will get the job.
Do you give the correct answer or not?
Isn't interviews about toadying up to the interviewer behind the desk regardless of their mental abilities?
No reason to spin the lasers, if you put 2 lasers at 2 intervals then you read twice as fast.
3 lasers, three times as fast etc.
Cheaper than moving the laser. But the scanner idea was sweet.
They've probably used aggressive power saving on the chip to save every electron but at the expense of performance.
Thats not such a bad thing, most of these things run address books and sync to email. The battery is the real problem with them, not the fact it can't encode video streams!
Sure they'll get a few complaints, but nothing like the slating they've been getting for the battery life problem.
Did you catch this one:
....all the digits dialed during a phone call -- obtained through a process known as "dialed-digit extraction."
"The FBI wants call-identifying information to include
You realise they're giving themselves powers to obtain all your telephone pin numbers.
If they have the pin numbers, there is no need to obtain a warrant to search a bank account, you could just dial the bank and use the pin numbers.
There are no checks possible to this, the FBI agent could just walk to any phone booth and do this.
At the moment they need a warrant to obtain a wire tap. But with the pin numbers anyone could dial an answer-phone and listen to the answering machine messages.
Why is the FBI so frightened of answering to the courts? All they have to do is convince a judge that the suspect *might* be involved in criminal activities.
KPNQwest was in debt. It offered a high yield bond in Jan 2001 to fund its activities based on predicted earnings. Those earnings grew too slowly. They couldn't pay for the bonds.
Then things got much worse, they had to try frantic trimming of the fat and that cost big bucks too. They had some 50 million Euros costs a quarter alone on that.
Servicing that debt cost big bucks. Now they're bankrupt, another telecoms company will buy the assets debt free.
THIS MEANS A CHEAP FIBRE NETWORK ACROSS EUROPE!
Meanwhile, the US has basically signed up to legalised monopolies run by the baby bells.
You guys can expect to be gouged.
Monopolies always say they're charging the lowest price possible and they're costs are all soooo expensive etc.
Then competition comes along and bingo - the price goes down.
Companies charge the maximum they can get away with and they can get away with a lot higher price if you have no alternative supplier.
So they would know which DVD was the source, but
unless they also linked every DVD to the owner, they couldn't tell who you are.
So the aim must be to track people aswell based on the copies they buy. Perhaps they will get MS to put add a feature that reports the ID of any DVD inserted into a Computer.
We should call on the EU to block the privacy invasion caused by electronically tagging DVD in this manner.
Is DSL & Cable modem!
Most of us don't need to go to work.
Therefore cars are not important.
Therefore DSL & cable modems are the future.
No fuel cell necessary.
I've listen to endless naysayers trying to talk down the Euro, there has been hard attacks on it on the currency markets. Yet there was no Soros like success. Every attempt to break it failed.
Its held firm for 3 years now. The inter-Europe exchange rates have all held firm, no Euro zone country has had to adjust its Euro exchange rate and thats despite the worldwide economic downturn.
ITS A BIG SUCCESS.
Give up naysayers - you lost.
Yahoo USE google as their search engine in a lot of languages (e.g. the German version uses Google).
So a lot of that Yahoo bar is actually Google!
Happy new currency.
Microsoft said they would get 600,000-800,000 units out by delaying Japanese shipments.
d _1 512000/1512354.stm
(see story below). This was quite a recent announcement.
I'm just not convinced they sold out, even the story quoting dealers who had sold out on the first weekend said 30% still had stock of XBox. This doesn't seem like the same sell out that PS2 achieved. If they only got 300k out then where are the other 300k-500k units?
Strikes me the reception was pretty muted, kindof - 'yeh XBox is quite a nice PC for the money' which doesn't exactly stirr my spending juices.
So this Nintendo story rings true, but take it with a pinch of salt till we see the Xmas sales figures.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsi
Is there any place we can contribute the pictures. I have a few I've photographed of Windows devices doing what Windows does best.
I am sick of touchy feely episodes:
Man meets alien,
Alien tries to kill man,
Man understands and empathises with Alien in a non confrontational way.
Alien says, Okey Dokey, you good man, me not kill you.
How is this any less formulaic than Soap? Its not even realistic, on Earth we are top of the food chain, anything above us in the food chain has been hunted to extinction. We didn't negotiate peaceful coexistance with tigers, they were a threat to us, SO WE SHOT THEM.
In space why wouldn't aliens see us as food or enemy or danger?
Also why should the NG/V/DS9 people eat replicator food? Why not go out and have a nice Martian rock skipper BBQ?
From the sound of it this man was responsible for the touchy feely crud and I for one am not sorry to see him go.
I went to the site, but it just seems to be Pocket PC adverts, most of them seem to be screen themes rather than anything useful.
Where's all the interesting stuff?
URL Corrected: http://www.mechtech.com/investors/power2001_files/ frame.htm
I found this company already have from their research aswell using their direct Methanol approach.
e s/ frame.htm
http://www.mechtech.com/
Unfortunately to see the picture of the prototype, you have to go through Dr Ackers Powerpoint slides.
Here are the slides
http://www.mechtech.com/investors/power2001_fil
They are just hyping the Playstation, by suggesting its sooooo powerful that should be prevented from obtaining the technology in it.
Sony's PR people did the same thing when they said Iraq were trying to buy up PS2s for use as Supercomputers.
Same hype, different enemy of the day.