Actually, it's the "native" English speakers who make this mistake more often. Especially Americans. Unless Americans qualify as non-native speakers, in which case you are correct.
I think the main problem is that we are limited by the current devices that we use: screen, mouse, keyboard. The solution I believe is to create a new type of desk with a touch sensitive display, that can also use electronic pens, etc. Something like those control panels in Star Trek. The desk can have several modes depending on what work you are doing, displaying a different control and work surface appropriately. That would be a true "desktop".
I find that working only on the screen in quite limiting. I always have books and papers spread over my desk for reference, and maybe also a notepad. If we could integrate these into an electronic desk, it would greatly increase productivity.
If k is known to the prisoners, then the answer posted by notshannon is the correct one.
The key to the solution is that each non-counter prisoner can flip the cup 2k+1 times. This effectively nullifies the king's influence.
Another way to think about it is with tokens. Say there are n prisoners. One of the prisoners has no tokens, he just collects them. Call him the collector. The other n-1 prisoners, each have 2k+1 tokens. Call them depositors.
At any one time, the table in front of the king either has a token or it doesn't. If a depositor sees the table empty, then he deposits a token on the table. If a depositor sees a token on the table he leaves it there. If the collector sees a token on the table, he takes it. If the collector sees no token on the table, he does nothing.
The analogy is: Putting a token on the table is like flipping the cup to face up. Taking a token from the table is like flipping the cup to face down.
The king (with his k flips) can effectively steal k tokens or add k tokens. This does not influence the decision of the collector guy when he is counting the tokens.
When the collector has collected (n-2)(2k+1) + (k+1) tokens, then it means that each of the depositors has deposited at least one token. If the king was allowed only to steal k tokens and not add k tokens to the table, then each prisoner would just need k+1 tokens, not 2k+1. And in that case, the collector would just need to collect (n-2)(k+1) + 1 tokens to say "yes". But because the king *can* add k tokens, we need to give extra tokens to the prisoners so that in case the king does not add those k tokens, the prisoners can add them, and the collector can collect enough tokens to make the "yes" decision, without having to wait for the king to add those k tokens.
I would like to refute the claim that we cannot have a collector prisoner (counter/leader prisoner). Someone said we cannot have a collector prisoner because the king can just call out the collector at the end, after all the depositor prisoners have been called out. The puzzle says that all prisoners will be called out as many times as you choose. So say that first all the depositor prisoners were called out p times. Then the collector prisoner was called out p times, I can always choose a number q > p. And so the depositor prisoners will have to be called out q times, as well as the collector. Therefore, the depositor prisoners will have to be called out even after the collector prisoner has been called out p times.
It's not the main MIT network we are talking about. It's the Media Lab network, which is somewhat independent from the main MIT network. You can see that from here: http://mit.edu/maps/networks/mit/mit-topology.pdf
The Media Lab subnet (18.85.0.1/18) uses the e19r2 router (you can verify this with a traceroute), and the media lab network connects to the router via a 100Mpbs ethernet interface.
Also, note that the Media Lab network is not operated by IS (Information Systems). IS is responsible of the main MIT network. The media lab network has its own sys admin.
So it's not the MIT network that's been slashdotted, but it's the Media Lab network.
"The software giant managed to further offend the Saudis by creating another game in which Muslim warriors turned churches into mosques."
The Muslims do turn churches into mosques. You can't blame MS for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's the "native" English speakers who make this mistake more often. Especially Americans. Unless Americans qualify as non-native speakers, in which case you are correct.
I think the main problem is that we are limited by the current devices that we use: screen, mouse, keyboard. The solution I believe is to create a new type of desk with a touch sensitive display, that can also use electronic pens, etc. Something like those control panels in Star Trek. The desk can have several modes depending on what work you are doing, displaying a different control and work surface appropriately. That would be a true "desktop".
I find that working only on the screen in quite limiting. I always have books and papers spread over my desk for reference, and maybe also a notepad. If we could integrate these into an electronic desk, it would greatly increase productivity.
If k is known to the prisoners, then the answer posted by notshannon is the correct one.
The key to the solution is that each non-counter prisoner can flip the cup 2k+1 times. This effectively nullifies the king's influence.
Another way to think about it is with tokens. Say there are n prisoners. One of the prisoners has no tokens, he just collects them. Call him the collector. The other n-1 prisoners, each have 2k+1 tokens. Call them depositors.
At any one time, the table in front of the king either has a token or it doesn't. If a depositor sees the table empty, then he deposits a token on the table. If a depositor sees a token on the table he leaves it there. If the collector sees a token on the table, he takes it. If the collector sees no token on the table, he does nothing.
The analogy is: Putting a token on the table is like flipping the cup to face up. Taking a token from the table is like flipping the cup to face down.
The king (with his k flips) can effectively steal k tokens or add k tokens. This does not influence the decision of the collector guy when he is counting the tokens.
When the collector has collected (n-2)(2k+1) + (k+1) tokens, then it means that each of the depositors has deposited at least one token. If the king was allowed only to steal k tokens and not add k tokens to the table, then each prisoner would just need k+1 tokens, not 2k+1. And in that case, the collector would just need to collect (n-2)(k+1) + 1 tokens to say "yes".
But because the king *can* add k tokens, we need to give extra tokens to the prisoners so that in case the king does not add those k tokens, the prisoners can add them, and the collector can collect enough tokens to make the "yes" decision, without having to wait for the king to add those k tokens.
I would like to refute the claim that we cannot have a collector prisoner (counter/leader prisoner). Someone said we cannot have a collector prisoner because the king can just call out the collector at the end, after all the depositor prisoners have been called out. The puzzle says that all prisoners will be called out as many times as you choose. So say that first all the depositor prisoners were called out p times. Then the collector prisoner was called out p times, I can always choose a number q > p. And so the depositor prisoners will have to be called out q times, as well as the collector. Therefore, the depositor prisoners will have to be called out even after the collector prisoner has been called out p times.
It's obvious that in general, men are better at IT than women. So what's the problem? Just let them do something else at which they are good.
It's not the main MIT network we are talking about. It's the Media Lab network, which is somewhat independent from the main MIT network. You can see that from here:
http://mit.edu/maps/networks/mit/mit-topology.pdf
The Media Lab subnet (18.85.0.1/18) uses the e19r2 router (you can verify this with a traceroute), and the media lab network connects to the router via a 100Mpbs ethernet interface.
Also, note that the Media Lab network is not operated by IS (Information Systems). IS is responsible of the main MIT network. The media lab network has its own sys admin.
So it's not the MIT network that's been slashdotted, but it's the Media Lab network.
"The software giant managed to further offend the Saudis by creating another game in which Muslim warriors turned churches into mosques."
The Muslims do turn churches into mosques. You can't blame MS for that.