The answer is simple, ask them nothing, walk away. The puzzle doesn't define that you have to talk to the guards, nor open a door, nor that finding the princess is better. Maybe you're Steve Irwin, Croc Hunter, looking for the exotic animal. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you are a woman and the guards are irresistibly cute, and happy that both are behind the door and can have both guards to yourself.
The trick to the riddle is that it is founded on an entire series of common assumptions. The fact that we fear tigers, the fact that we "want" princesses, the fact that the guards are to be asked or have any real authority to block doors, and the fact that we have to find out what is behind the doors by asking a question based on the perceived morality of the guards... THAT is interesting.
I wear yellow tinted glasses day and night, and I can't remember driving without them. The glare is gone in the day, and my night vision is greatly improved, especially with jerks following and coming towards me with either brights on, or those ultra-bright lights. It also helps driving fatigue immensely.
I've often fantasized about carrying a 2 million candle power hand held rechargeable spotlight to flash people behind me with their brights on. But rather than go to prison for manslaughter when the go flying off at 70mph into a ravine, I just wear my tinted glasses.
Cookies are now abusive? Google has been leading the way in terms of always on HTTPS, a browser that includes an easy to use incognito mode ahead of other major browsers, and clear and easy ways to view your history (which is default off, iiirc), clear it, retrieve all your Google saved data such as pics, etc.
Their really intrusive services, like Latitude are completely optional and even when turned on are always defaulted to safe settings. Even their picture search is default to avoid pornography for worried parents.
Compare this to just about any other leading tech company like Facebook or Microsoft. And statements like "Google shouldn't even try to do datamining like this as it can be used maliciously" shows a lack of understanding about what Google's business is, and tech in general.
Everything we use can be theoretically used maliciously, such as BitTorrent (pirating), Instant Messaging/Chat (pedophiles), Social Networking (rioting), etc.
Except they are spamming DMCA notices -- the C standing for Copyright -- and all of the claims made in the notices are about copyright infringement. I hope someone nails Atari to the wall for this bullshit.
I haven't heard someone say that since Ms. PacMan.
So, technically then, it would be possible to inject this into a common virus, and encode the logic circuit with a specific molecular pattern... ie DNA? So, if we have someone's DNA, we can custom build a viral bomb to travel through the entire population, and once it hits the person, it could cause life threatening alterations to their body chemistry?
That's probably beyond the scope of this research, but once you have a biological logic circuit, it's just a finite matter of time before it's put to military/political use.
I'm not sure if it was a typo, but if she really is $40k a month, I think living expenses would be pretty much an afterthought. Really. For $40k a year, I seriously doubt I as a worker would move unless there was absolutely no other choice.
I think I'm speaking to a mindset, though. If you turn down a $40k a month job because of a $1000 baseline living expense versus a doubled $2000, I'm not sure what the saves really are (telecommuting isn't free, after all) though that depends on their job.
The real mindset difference is between an uber-tech company, and any other company, tech or not, that isn't in Silicon Valley. A lot of us IT grunts may never even visit CA (though I occasionally have a layover). It's like a bubbled world of high pay but cut throat work politics and fierce competition.
I don't make a lot of money here, but it's average pay for where I am. On the other hand, I have little competition and much higher job security here in the midwest. $150k for my job would be completely unheard of in this area. On the other hand, even the high paid here aren't very far up the ladder from me. The fact that I can code is a bonus.
Technically, Silicon Valley doesn't need to move workers spoiled on a $150k paycheck here. They can just hire from here and cut that at least in half. State to state outsourcing will continue to rise at the expense of CA, NY, TX, and FL and to the benefit of everyone else with decent to fast internet.
Yeah, who wants a mirror directly in front of the toilet? That's not very magical for me. At least they won't be bundling many cameras with these devices as I doubt anyone will want to join that person's Skype or Hangout.
For $150k a year, it goes pretty damn far in the real world. I could retire at 50.
Then again, unlike people making $150k, I don't own a $750k house with a balloon payment that doubled the mortgage. If that's the real world, then I guess all the "Insightful" mods are in foreclosure on taking on bad mortgage loans.
However, in my fantasy world, my mortgage is easily maintainable with a household income of just $70k a year. And in that world, $150k would pay the house off in 10 years, and bank a 401k in half the time for only one working adult in that house, with both able to retire at 45 or 50.
If reality only encompasses the Bay Area, you might have a point, supposing that "fantasy" is the rest of us, or the 50% of the world that lives on less than $2 a day. Haha, silly fantasy world, nobody really lives on less than $150k a year, right?
I heard you say the word crime a lot. But technically, what Google does is a crime in China. In the US, media tried to show that Google's Canadian Pharmacy advertisements, which was a crime in the US, make Google look evil. But if you have half a notion about health care, there is a greater argument that it is actually ethical.
What makes something unethical simply because it is a crime? Any idiotic idea can become a crime, like blasphemy laws in Iran. So saying your against crime has to have an underlying ethic of which laws you support, and which you yourself would break under certain circumstances.
Let's stick to ethics, and leave crime to politicians. We can argue the ethics, but really, crime is not crime. Saying otherwise, you validate every law ever made everywhere.
A 2:1 ratio of Android to iPhone... how much clearer could the message be? Sounds like lots of actual users realized it. I do have to agree with one thing. People want "free" software on their phones. Geeks want "open". Sometimes, through jailbreaking/rooting, we get both, such as tethering apps (and I'd bet 90+% of smartphone users know what that is).
In that case, not users, but manufacturers. HP failed because Google offered free licensing to anyone. HP, afaik, licensed to no one, at least, nobody that mattered. (If they did, it would be news to me.) That doesn't sound very free or open. HP now wants to license... surprise, surprise.
That is true, just look at Windows. However, you have to have some extremely tight market control to maintain a closed monopoly. Blackberry tried it, and failed. Most people just hate giving up BBM, but not enough to leave a sinking ship. Apple tried it with the iPhone, but iTunes isn't that captivating, really. Unless it has a trick up its sleeve besides patents, the iPad has no clear advantage, software or hardware, that can't be recreated. Unless they can have exclusive content, the way other monopoly platforms do (or are super cheap, like a windows pc), they can't ultimately hold out.
The iPod held out for a long time, but that didn't translate to the iPhone. Most mp3 players were shit. Companies that make cellphones saw Apple coming onto their own turf, though, and they have much more pull at the carrier. But the tablet market isn't as clear. We'll see how soon iPad is displaced. I think it will be slower, due to different turf. But I don't see the tablet having the iPod effect, because there are major players in it who aren't about to just give up.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer is simple, ask them nothing, walk away. The puzzle doesn't define that you have to talk to the guards, nor open a door, nor that finding the princess is better. Maybe you're Steve Irwin, Croc Hunter, looking for the exotic animal. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you are a woman and the guards are irresistibly cute, and happy that both are behind the door and can have both guards to yourself.
The trick to the riddle is that it is founded on an entire series of common assumptions. The fact that we fear tigers, the fact that we "want" princesses, the fact that the guards are to be asked or have any real authority to block doors, and the fact that we have to find out what is behind the doors by asking a question based on the perceived morality of the guards... THAT is interesting.
Maybe Wikileaks should have been a botnet.
Now that's some justice! Of all the places in the world to be an asshole, the highway is NOT one of them.
-nt-
I wear yellow tinted glasses day and night, and I can't remember driving without them. The glare is gone in the day, and my night vision is greatly improved, especially with jerks following and coming towards me with either brights on, or those ultra-bright lights. It also helps driving fatigue immensely.
I've often fantasized about carrying a 2 million candle power hand held rechargeable spotlight to flash people behind me with their brights on. But rather than go to prison for manslaughter when the go flying off at 70mph into a ravine, I just wear my tinted glasses.
Cookies are now abusive? Google has been leading the way in terms of always on HTTPS, a browser that includes an easy to use incognito mode ahead of other major browsers, and clear and easy ways to view your history (which is default off, iiirc), clear it, retrieve all your Google saved data such as pics, etc.
Their really intrusive services, like Latitude are completely optional and even when turned on are always defaulted to safe settings. Even their picture search is default to avoid pornography for worried parents.
Compare this to just about any other leading tech company like Facebook or Microsoft. And statements like "Google shouldn't even try to do datamining like this as it can be used maliciously" shows a lack of understanding about what Google's business is, and tech in general.
Everything we use can be theoretically used maliciously, such as BitTorrent (pirating), Instant Messaging/Chat (pedophiles), Social Networking (rioting), etc.
v. "manipulate public sentiment by manufacturing bogus opinion on the Internet"; see Tienanmen Square
Except they are spamming DMCA notices -- the C standing for Copyright -- and all of the claims made in the notices are about copyright infringement. I hope someone nails Atari to the wall for this bullshit.
I haven't heard someone say that since Ms. PacMan.
So, technically then, it would be possible to inject this into a common virus, and encode the logic circuit with a specific molecular pattern... ie DNA? So, if we have someone's DNA, we can custom build a viral bomb to travel through the entire population, and once it hits the person, it could cause life threatening alterations to their body chemistry?
That's probably beyond the scope of this research, but once you have a biological logic circuit, it's just a finite matter of time before it's put to military/political use.
Tell me I'm not the first to figure out the obvious headline "Dream Job" anywhere this story is posted or shared?
My mistake, Cerium... I bow to you sir! http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2410312&cid=37288504
Tell me I'm not the first to figure out the obvious headline "Dream Job" anywhere this story is posted or shared?
I'm not sure if it was a typo, but if she really is $40k a month, I think living expenses would be pretty much an afterthought. Really. For $40k a year, I seriously doubt I as a worker would move unless there was absolutely no other choice.
I think I'm speaking to a mindset, though. If you turn down a $40k a month job because of a $1000 baseline living expense versus a doubled $2000, I'm not sure what the saves really are (telecommuting isn't free, after all) though that depends on their job.
The real mindset difference is between an uber-tech company, and any other company, tech or not, that isn't in Silicon Valley. A lot of us IT grunts may never even visit CA (though I occasionally have a layover). It's like a bubbled world of high pay but cut throat work politics and fierce competition.
I don't make a lot of money here, but it's average pay for where I am. On the other hand, I have little competition and much higher job security here in the midwest. $150k for my job would be completely unheard of in this area. On the other hand, even the high paid here aren't very far up the ladder from me. The fact that I can code is a bonus.
Technically, Silicon Valley doesn't need to move workers spoiled on a $150k paycheck here. They can just hire from here and cut that at least in half. State to state outsourcing will continue to rise at the expense of CA, NY, TX, and FL and to the benefit of everyone else with decent to fast internet.
Or as Obama said, the big issues... the faked moon landing and what really happened to Biggie and TuPac. ;)
Yeah, who wants a mirror directly in front of the toilet? That's not very magical for me. At least they won't be bundling many cameras with these devices as I doubt anyone will want to join that person's Skype or Hangout.
For $150k a year, it goes pretty damn far in the real world. I could retire at 50.
Then again, unlike people making $150k, I don't own a $750k house with a balloon payment that doubled the mortgage. If that's the real world, then I guess all the "Insightful" mods are in foreclosure on taking on bad mortgage loans.
However, in my fantasy world, my mortgage is easily maintainable with a household income of just $70k a year. And in that world, $150k would pay the house off in 10 years, and bank a 401k in half the time for only one working adult in that house, with both able to retire at 45 or 50.
If reality only encompasses the Bay Area, you might have a point, supposing that "fantasy" is the rest of us, or the 50% of the world that lives on less than $2 a day. Haha, silly fantasy world, nobody really lives on less than $150k a year, right?
I heard you say the word crime a lot. But technically, what Google does is a crime in China. In the US, media tried to show that Google's Canadian Pharmacy advertisements, which was a crime in the US, make Google look evil. But if you have half a notion about health care, there is a greater argument that it is actually ethical.
What makes something unethical simply because it is a crime? Any idiotic idea can become a crime, like blasphemy laws in Iran. So saying your against crime has to have an underlying ethic of which laws you support, and which you yourself would break under certain circumstances.
Let's stick to ethics, and leave crime to politicians. We can argue the ethics, but really, crime is not crime. Saying otherwise, you validate every law ever made everywhere.
Since when does Anonymous not just act because it can? Does it really need a reason?
They recently "upgraded" their DVD model as well.
DVDs by Mail - First Born Male Child
I can't quote it from memory, but I still remember the striptease from Jamie Lee Curtis that was interrupted much too soon.
Wow, looking at the picture, he was a chubby guy not too long ago... damn... Hope his treatments are working out for him.
they still can't "design" an attractive interface for shit! I give you the Windows 8 Explorer Toolbar Ribbon.
I've yet to meet the office worker that likes the Office style ribbon, which is exactly what it looks like.
A 2:1 ratio of Android to iPhone... how much clearer could the message be? Sounds like lots of actual users realized it. I do have to agree with one thing. People want "free" software on their phones. Geeks want "open". Sometimes, through jailbreaking/rooting, we get both, such as tethering apps (and I'd bet 90+% of smartphone users know what that is).
When I see that, then people can claim that tablets are for "real" work. I hope it is soon, I hate the "toy" phase so many devices go through.
In that case, not users, but manufacturers. HP failed because Google offered free licensing to anyone. HP, afaik, licensed to no one, at least, nobody that mattered. (If they did, it would be news to me.) That doesn't sound very free or open. HP now wants to license... surprise, surprise.
That is true, just look at Windows. However, you have to have some extremely tight market control to maintain a closed monopoly. Blackberry tried it, and failed. Most people just hate giving up BBM, but not enough to leave a sinking ship. Apple tried it with the iPhone, but iTunes isn't that captivating, really. Unless it has a trick up its sleeve besides patents, the iPad has no clear advantage, software or hardware, that can't be recreated. Unless they can have exclusive content, the way other monopoly platforms do (or are super cheap, like a windows pc), they can't ultimately hold out.
The iPod held out for a long time, but that didn't translate to the iPhone. Most mp3 players were shit. Companies that make cellphones saw Apple coming onto their own turf, though, and they have much more pull at the carrier. But the tablet market isn't as clear. We'll see how soon iPad is displaced. I think it will be slower, due to different turf. But I don't see the tablet having the iPod effect, because there are major players in it who aren't about to just give up.