• Herby (unregistered)

    Well, one way would be to fill up a 757 empty it into a 737. Then empty the 757 into the 737, and fill it up again and fill up the 737, you would get a 747's weight. Wouldn't that work??

    I really like the best solution: Go to Detroit and fill up the 5 gallon jug, drive over to Winsor (they have a tunnel!), and you have 4 gallons. Works for me! Of course, I like to travel as well.

  • (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    I think the weight the jumbo jet problems actually might be better. Since you probably don't have the real answer, the question is more about the process and you should probably have multiple answers from a good candidate.
    Unless like me you happen to know two companies that sell plane weighing equipment (if you disassemble one side too quickly you cause problems, you have to keep the thing in check - mostly for reassembly purposes - "where's that stubby screwdriver? I just had it" is not permitted). Then you can go into details about the methods, the components being used, the cost of a system to do the measuring, the accuracy, the locations of appropriate weighing points, the structural integrity.... oh, my bad. Rambling aren't I?

    But seriously, the former employer sold just such a system. I too wondered why at first. Then I quickly lost care in the why, as I never did anything more with it than pitch in a hand moving stuff around the warehouse.

    As for the true weight, as others have said, that depends on a number of factors. Want me to place a call? Should I call the pilots I know that fly for Delta, should I call my friends at the aerospace plants, or should I call my google-buddy?

  • Jackie (unregistered) in reply to drachenstern
    drachenstern:
    Belle:
    drachenstern:
    No, it was Die Hard 2, this was between the cab ride and the ballpark clue.
    Die Hard 3, actually. With Bruce Willis (of course) and Samuel L. Jackson.
    My apologies, I should've known better than to make that gaff. Two was in the airport. Those two DO like to do movies together don't they?

    #2 was in an airport measuring the weight of 747's not 3 & 5 Gallon containers...

  • StychoKiller (unregistered) in reply to Peter
    Peter:
    Ozz:
    anon:
    I'd find the weight of the 747 by reading the service manual. That's the right answer, right?
    You left the service manual in your other pants. Now what do you do?

    Phone a friend

    Is that your "Final Answer?"

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered)

    leave it to a wharton alum to try and hire a programmer in manhattan for $20/hr. That's probably what baggers make.

  • Mike (unregistered) in reply to ollo
    ollo:
    Me:
    And everyone knows you weigh a 747 by putting it in a bath and weighing the displaced water.

    OK, the 747 sinks, now what?

    It can sink all it wants... it still displaces the same amount of water.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Mike
    Mike:
    ollo:
    Me:
    And everyone knows you weigh a 747 by putting it in a bath and weighing the displaced water.

    OK, the 747 sinks, now what?

    It can sink all it wants... it still displaces the same amount of water.

    And it still gives you the volume, not the mass.

  • (cs) in reply to PeriSoft
    PeriSoft:
    You can, however, empty and fill the bottles with water as many ties as you want. How would you get four gallons of water?

    Wait - can you fill the bottles with water, or with ties? Where do you even get enough ties to fill a 5-gallon bottle? Are we talking neckties, bow ties, or tie fighters?

    This is very confusing.

    What do you do in case of a tie?

  • (cs) in reply to wjr
    wjr:
    PeriSoft:
    This is very confusing.
    What do you do in case of a tie?
    depends - is it attached to the plane that everyone is insistent on sinking? If so, I would cut the tie off or remove it in some fashion.

    Otherwise, probably just make sure the knot is a proper Windsor and wear it not-so-tight-that-you-choke-or-have-veins-bulging-out (English needs long compound words)

  • Pbutting Gas in Clbutt (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Ozz:
    anon:
    I'd find the weight of the 747 by reading the service manual. That's the right answer, right?
    You left the service manual in your other pants. Now what do you do?

    I'd go your mother's house and get them.

    WIN
  • synp (unregistered) in reply to neveralull
    neveralull:
    When we interview candidates, we feel that everthing listed on the resume is an invitation for us to ask technical questions about, but we don't necessarily hold it against the candidate if he admits that he is weak in a certain area. But my candidate got mad and started yelling at me becuase I was asking too many technical questions. He said he was strong in C++, so one of my questions was for him to give an example of when he would use a template. "I would never use a template," he said with a raised voice. I asked why, and he answered because he doesn't know anything about templates. An honest answer, but I didn't like his attitude. Other interviewers at the company liked him, for what reasons I have no idea.

    Anyone who doesn't use templates is fine by me.

  • Blern (unregistered)

    This would be the most amount of comments I've seen for a while.

    Has TDWTF finally got their software fixed up so people can actually post first time, every time

  • (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Mike:
    ollo:
    Me:
    And everyone knows you weigh a 747 by putting it in a bath and weighing the displaced water.

    OK, the 747 sinks, now what?

    It can sink all it wants... it still displaces the same amount of water.

    And it still gives you the volume, not the mass.

    So? That's hardly an insoluble problem: just multiply by the density.

    Of course, the best way to weigh a 747 is to put it inside a calorimeter, and burn it.

  • Some Guy (unregistered) in reply to Dennis
    Dennis:
    That's 4 gallons in the fishtank. Of course it's wrong because the UNWRITTEN assumption is that the 4 gallons has to end up in the 5-gallon container.
    At last!

    We have determined why this is a perfect question!

    If you are a programmer, your job is to turn specifications (aka customer requirements) into code. These will always and without exception have an "UNWRITTEN assumption".

    A fucktard will jump up and down screaming and howling that the business analyst had "unwritten" assumptions and other vagueness.

    A competent developer, on the other hand, will apply his/her advanced mastery of the "talking to humans" skill, and work it out, possibly asking for clarification, and interpreting the clarification.

    In the case of this question, the reply "just answer the question" would suggest to a sane and intelligent person that mindless pedantry is not the correct answer. A person who is emotionally incapable of coping with that reply would instantly be filed under "less useful than a cabbage" and not hired.

    Every last fucking time this topic comes up, thousands of morons proudly explain that the question is less than perfectly specified. They are, of course, correct - and if I was doing the interview, their outrage would be the thing that persuade me that I'ld rather hire a rubby ducky.

    As a backup option, failure to answer a question when the question is discussed every last time that job interviews are discussed is not a sign that you've done your homework. Interviews always suck. That's a fact. And they are necessary. So if your interviewing skills are weak and you need to succeed in an interview, you need to do something about it. If your attitude is "I hate this bit of the process, I expect everyone else to treat me like a special snowflake" then any interviewer is going to be making assumptions about your attitude towarsd every part of the actual job that isn't fun.

    tl;dr: Just answer the god damned question, unless you have some diagnosed mental disorder, in which case I'm sorry but you may have trouble in the real world.

  • Oogie Boogie (unregistered) in reply to Some Guy
    Some Guy:
    Dennis:
    That's 4 gallons in the fishtank. Of course it's wrong because the UNWRITTEN assumption is that the 4 gallons has to end up in the 5-gallon container.
    <snip some ranting>.

    Interviews always suck. That's a fact. And they are necessary. So if your interviewing skills are weak and you need to succeed in an interview, you need to do something about it.

    <snip/censor some more>

    I'm not convinced interviews are really all that necessary. Perhaps another alternative should be considered.

    I work with a lot of muppets who got through rounds of interviewing. I know of several very capable (and reasonably skilled) people, who struggle at interview and some have missed jobs as a result.

    Interviews are necessary? Not at all!! But unfortunately, noone has yet agreed to use a better option. Interviews rarely get the best candidate - or if they do, I'm frightened to think that (some of) the people that surround me must at some time have been the best candidate.

    Incidently, it seems to me you are a very angry person. How do you cope with interviews?

  • Oogie Boogie (unregistered) in reply to Oogie Boogie
    Oogie Boogie:
    Some Guy:
    Dennis:
    That's 4 gallons in the fishtank. Of course it's wrong because the UNWRITTEN assumption is that the 4 gallons has to end up in the 5-gallon container.
    <snip some ranting>.

    Interviews always suck. That's a fact. And they are necessary. So if your interviewing skills are weak and you need to succeed in an interview, you need to do something about it.

    <snip/censor some more>

    I'm not convinced interviews are really all that necessary. Perhaps another alternative should be considered.

    I work with a lot of muppets who got through rounds of interviewing. I know of several very capable (and reasonably skilled) people, who struggle at interview and some have missed jobs as a result.

    Interviews are necessary? Not at all!! But unfortunately, noone has yet agreed to use a better option. Interviews rarely get the best candidate - or if they do, I'm frightened to think that (some of) the people that surround me must at some time have been the best candidate.

    Incidently, it seems to me you are a very angry person. How do you cope with interviews?

    In fact, perhaps your post is a very good example.

    Many recruiters think that 'passionate people' are good people to hire. I think too often people who are passionate get all steamed up about being challenged that the lose sight of where they are going (and too often refuse to even consider that opinions other than their own may have some merit). I'm guessing you're probably someone who works with c++ who can't accept that some people prefer things done in java.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Mike:
    ollo:
    Me:
    And everyone knows you weigh a 747 by putting it in a bath and weighing the displaced water.

    OK, the 747 sinks, now what?

    It can sink all it wants... it still displaces the same amount of water.

    And it still gives you the volume, not the mass.

    So what? Take the volume of water displaced and unit convert it to mass based on the density of whatever you dunked it in. Just don't expect to do anything with the 747 after.

  • Cheong (unregistered)

    Wow... typing speed for a programmer? That's a rare requirement...

    I guess I'm gonna fail on this one.

  • Cheong (unregistered)

    On a second thought, this could also be happened...

    A smart programming guru somehow become handicapped and cannot use keyboard to code himself, so the company has to hire someone who "can understand what he said" and "can type fast" to type in the code for hime.

  • (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    RogerInHawaii:
    Anon:
    The water question isn't even a brain teaser. Just a little proof of whether or not you read a book of brain-teasers before. Sure, a few people will solve it without knowing the answer beforehand, but probably not without wasting a lot of precious interview time doing the arithmentic in their heads.

    Perfectly said!

    I hate "brain teasers" and logic puzzles. I am absolutely terrible at them. They make my brain hurt. Yet I am an excellent software engineer. I can design and implement very complex software systems with ease. The logic and experience required for software engineering bear no relationship to those god-awful brain teasers. Interviewers and particularly HR personnel interviewers, have no clue what they're doing when they use those puzzles as an interviewing tool.

    It depends on how you use them. If you give a "brain teaser" and expect the interviewee to come back with the right answer and if they don't you take that as a mark against them, then that is, frankly, retarded. If on the other hand, you give the "brain teaser" as a chance to see how the person thinks, see how they respond to an abstract problem, see what questions they ask. Then I think it's a valid thing to do. Take some of the non-answers on this thread. Some, I think, are good and show real intellect. Some are deliberately obtuse attempts to cheat and redefine the problem or else be a smart ass. I think the weight the jumbo jet problems actually might be better. Since you probably don't have the real answer, the question is more about the process and you should probably have multiple answers from a good candidate.

    Except that people have different ways of addressing problems. I usually take time to think things through, quietly, in my head, considering various alternatives and trying "though experiments" in my mind. If I'm forced to verbalize my train of thought it totally screws up the thought process. So I would probably fail an interview test like this, even though I might be perfectly suited to addressing their actual engineering needs.

  • (cs) in reply to Devil's Advocate
    Devil's Advocate:
    RogerInHawaii:
    Anon:
    The water question isn't even a brain teaser. Just a little proof of whether or not you read a book of brain-teasers before. Sure, a few people will solve it without knowing the answer beforehand, but probably not without wasting a lot of precious interview time doing the arithmentic in their heads.

    Perfectly said!

    I hate "brain teasers" and logic puzzles. I am absolutely terrible at them. They make my brain hurt. Yet I am an excellent software engineer. I can design and implement very complex software systems with ease. The logic and experience required for software engineering bear no relationship to those god-awful brain teasers. Interviewers and particularly HR personnel interviewers, have no clue what they're doing when they use those puzzles as an interviewing tool.

    The bit in bold is exactly the problem. Too many people implement overly complex solutions (admittedly with ease). Some of the discussion seen here on the water problem illustrates that there can be more than 1 approach to a solution. Jumping headfirst into the most complex is not necessarily a good thing.

    That said, I agree, for the most part brain teasers are a crock because they put someone who has come across them before at an advantage (not to mention, someone who has come across them before probably enjoys them and so does them all the time). Similarly, someone who often sits IQ tests will appear to have a higher IQ than someone sitting one for the first time. Neither is a measure of your ability to think...

    OK, let me rephrase that sentence: "I can design and implement solutions to very complex software problems." I did not intend to imply that the solutions themselves were complex. They may be complex solutions, they may be simple solutions. But they are appropriate and properly designed.

  • P.M.Lawrence (unregistered) in reply to agrif
    agrif:
    Anon:
    AndersI:
    I would put the five gallon bottle on the scale and fill water into it until it is 4 kg heavier.

    Great answer. Put it on the scale that the problem explicitly stated that you didn't have.

    Even better, 4 kg of water is 4 liters, not 4 gallons. You'd want 32 pounds (a pint's a pound the world around, unless you lived in civilized nations where a pound is for dogs)

    That US mnemonic ("a pint's a pound the world around") is factually incorrect, because in most parts of the world where those units are used at all "a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter".

  • P.M.Lawrence (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    agrif:
    ...(a pint's a pound the world around, unless you lived in civilized nations where a pound is for dogs)

    Please take your metric snobbery elsewhere. Don't you people get it? Use of Imperial Units is a trade barrier-- sorta like the CE mark.

    Those weren't imperial measures, but the short changing US variety.

  • (cs)

    Fill the 3 gallon container. Count the number of water molecules in it. Divide by 3 to get the number of water molecules in a gallon of water. Put that number of water molecules in the 5 gallon container.

    Isn't everyone in this forum a computer programmer, or at least familiar with computer programming? Don't we deal with digital computers? So why address this problem from an analog perspective, i.e. measuring the water instead of counting it?

  • P.M.Lawrence (unregistered) in reply to Xantor
    Xantor:
    AndersI:
    I would put the five gallon bottle on the scale and fill water into it until it is 4 kg heavier.

    Isn't that how they lost a Mars probe?

    Something like that happened with the Gimli Glider, an airliner that was forced to do an unpowered emergency landing at Gimli after gliding there because it hadn't been given enough fuel.

  • xplayerhaterx (unregistered)

    I've seen a few solutions to the water problem that ... I don't quite comprehend.

    Two scenarios: 1) Only ONE JUG can have 4 gallons. or 2) 4 gallons between either is acceptible.

    For scenario 1:

    #1 is 3 gallon (empty) #2 is 5 gallon (empty).

    Fill #1, dump into #2. Fill #1, dump into #2. At this point, #2 lacks room for the remainder liquid of #1, which means #1 has roughly 1 gallon.

    Mark that on the #1 container, empty #2, and fill into #2 one gallon at a time. #2 will have 4 gallons in it.

    For scenario 2.

    #1 is 3 gal, (empty). #2 is 5 gal, (empty).

    Fill #2, pour into #1 to the top. What remains in #2 is 2 gallons. Mark that point on the jug.

    Empty #1, and pour the 2 gallons of #2 into #1. Fill #2 until the marked spot. Now both jugs contain a combined 4 gallons.

    You can combine #1 into #2 and make jug #2 have 4 gallons.

  • Xythar (unregistered) in reply to xplayerhaterx
    xplayerhaterx:
    I've seen a few solutions to the water problem that ... I don't quite comprehend.

    Two scenarios: 1) Only ONE JUG can have 4 gallons. or 2) 4 gallons between either is acceptible.

    For scenario 1:

    #1 is 3 gallon (empty) #2 is 5 gallon (empty).

    Fill #1, dump into #2. Fill #1, dump into #2. At this point, #2 lacks room for the remainder liquid of #1, which means #1 has roughly 1 gallon.

    Mark that on the #1 container, empty #2, and fill into #2 one gallon at a time. #2 will have 4 gallons in it.

    I'm not sure why you'd need to mark anything given that you can just pour the 1 gallon from #1 into #2, then fill #1 completely and pour it into #2 (which has 1 gallon in it from just before). 3+1=4, and this works for both solutions.

    I don't really see why the solution needs to be overcomplicated.

  • Dave (unregistered)

    I'd fill the 3 gallon container and state that a 4 gallon patch is currently under development.

  • programron (unregistered) in reply to Dan
    Dan:
    Or severe carpal tunnel syndrome

    I actually paid someone to type my code out for me after breaking my wrists. True story! I would seriously consider doing it again if I ever lose use of my hands permanently.

  • fumjoisey (unregistered) in reply to jrh
    jrh:
    wcw:
    What's bizarre is that they expect to get a smart, capable kid who can type fast in Manhattan for $20 an hour. What that kind of money in NYC actually buys you is something else entirely, like maybe a hand job from a crack whore in Jersey.

    Actually a hand job in Jersey isn't something you'd buy in NYC.

    Unless the crack whore has really long arms.

  • The Web is the Root of All Info (unregistered) in reply to Oogie Boogie

    From 'Why Should I Hire You?' and Other Favorite Interview Questions at Computerworld, this quote:

    Why should I hire you? "It's the opportunity to see if the individual wants the job," says Sherry Aaholm, executive vice president of IT at Memphis-based FedEx Corp. "I want to see if they're passionate and if they've done their research into that position." One interviewee gave a classic wrong answer: "Because you already know me." A previous relationship won't get a candidate the job, Aaholm says, nor will such an uninspired answer.

    This is the classic 'passion person' question, and it's a classic mistake by the interviewer.

    Short answer? "I don't know, I can't read your mind."

    The real answer (that I came up with only after reading the Computerworld article)? Whip out your copy of the skill-match cover letter you created for the position, and tell them your fit and interest in the position, and how you would like to be at that particular company.

    Me? My personal experience? All the jobs I have had in the past have been where I or the company have been desperate for a job/filled position. So when I was actually asked this question for once during an interview, my answer was "because your company's desperate." (I'm thinking: I don't know what your company's exact internal hiring process is, don't you?? [Can I put this interview by Paula Bean's relative on the DailyWTF?])

    In the quote above, the 'classic wrong answer' the person gave, "Because you already know me.", could also be counted as referring to the hiring process itself, instead on of the position. In my case, I could have given the same type of classic 'wrong' answer (very similar to the person's answer), as I was interviewing in a different part of the same company I was currently working at, trying to get into a 'career' track. So my 'already knew me' classic wrong answer would be: 'I am already in the internal systems, no need to wait a month for every thing to be setup, we can get started on the project immediately'.

    If you ask this question, and you get an answer that really doesn't connect to the specifics of the position or your company, the interviewee doesn't get the question.

    On the classic logic puzzles: My solution to working these problems is to spout out my assumptions while working on the problem, the interviewer should(!) be listening to you speak, and can correct your assumptions while still working on the problem. In my case, one time the interviewer corrected me, and he said he was looking for the basics of the answer, and not a full implementation.

  • (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    The water question isn't even a brain teaser. Just a little proof of whether or not you read a book of brain-teasers before. Sure, a few people will solve it without knowing the answer beforehand, but probably not without wasting a lot of precious interview time doing the arithmentic in their heads.
    I'd never seen that one before. Presumably it's because I don't read books of brain teasers and didn't go to school in America or wherever this stuff is supposed to be common.

    It took, oh, about 30 seconds to come up with the right answer? And you reckon only "a few" people, INTERVIEWING FOR PROGRAMMING JOBS, could solve it at all?

    In that case it's a great kind of problem, because it's going to filter out all the people who have no business whatsoever trying to write code.

    Seriously, if you think it's difficult to add and subtract tiny integers in your head, please stop programming immediately. Maybe you should go work at Walmart ... no, wait, you'd never manage to give correct change.

  • Paul (unregistered) in reply to ollo
    ollo:
    Me:
    And everyone knows you weigh a 747 by putting it in a bath and weighing the displaced water.

    OK, the 747 sinks, now what?

    Put gaffer tape over all the seams & vents. THEN put it in the bath.

    A water-tight 747 will float. If it floats the displacement tells you the mass.

    (Is this one for the Mythbusters?)

  • Kempeth (unregistered)
    1. Fill the 3 gallon container and empty it into the 5 gallon container.
    2. Ship it
    3. If the customers complain tell them a one gallon upgrade will soom be available as version 1.1.
    4. Sell 1.1 upgrades in packs of 3 by shipping them full 3 gallon containers and let them figure it out themself...
  • (cs)

    "... and pretty much every other technology under the SUN." You mean, like, ummh... Java?

  • Teemu (unregistered) in reply to Anon

    IF it sinks, it'll give you the volume. If it floats, it'll give you the mass.

    Come on now people, it's not that hard.

  • (cs) in reply to Bellinghman
    Bellinghman:
    You are allowed to assume certain things in these questions you know. Like the presence of air to breathe. Just not things that the original question said were not available.
    That's good. I'll assume the presence of a 4 gallon jug then. Job done.

    If that won't work, I'll go the marketing route, assume the presence of a sticker and pen, write out a "25% extra free" label, put it on the 5 gallon jug and fill it. Job done.

  • (cs)

    If he's from Greece, you can easily put four gallons of water into the Senior Developper's a$$. But don't even ask me to do it.

  • (cs) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    Except of course that when you hit "Quote" on that post, you got to see the answer in plain text, before you snipped it away, immediately after the last word that you left in there. So not all that new to you...
    You know, I was looking for the word 'lose', and trimmed everything from that to the end. I didn't think to read what I was trimming out to see if it was different from what was on the screen. Because, you know, I was trimming it.

    What can I say? I didn't think to Google it either. My bad!

  • Patrick (unregistered) in reply to DeepThought
    DeepThought:
    Patrick:
    Does the Senior Programmer have no hands with which to type?

    Or has a sever case of carpal tunnel syndrome.

    Yes... last I checked, hands with CPT are not hands with which to type. Unless you want to make it worse.

  • dolomite (unregistered) in reply to fumjoisey
    fumjoisey:
    jrh:
    wcw:
    What's bizarre is that they expect to get a smart, capable kid who can type fast in Manhattan for $20 an hour. What that kind of money in NYC actually buys you is something else entirely, like maybe a hand job from a crack whore in Jersey.

    Actually a hand job in Jersey isn't something you'd buy in NYC.

    Unless the crack whore has really long arms.

    The other option of hiring a crack whore to fly over to one of the channel islands to have a good time with is hideously expensive and would have to cover a longer time frame.

  • Josephus (unregistered) in reply to Name
    Name:
    For those who wonder about the bottles: 
    3 5 -- #1 and #2
---------------
0 5 -- fill #2
3 2 -- put 3 in #1
0 2 -- empty #1
2 0 -- empty #2 in #1
2 5 -- fill #2
3 4 -- fill #1 with #2

    wow, not hired. Inability to explain simple things in a comprehensible manner.

  • rfoxmich (unregistered) in reply to joe.edwards

    Actually if the pair programmer is physically impaired in some way this is a sensible posting. E.g. blind, or movement impaired such that s/he can't type well.

  • Josephus (unregistered) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    SenTree:
    blem specified bottles which would mean the orifices are too narrow for insertion.

    Most expressions of that problem aren't that specific. Yes, in the case of bottles, that likely means the tops are too narrow. But then again, they are oddly shaped. This implies that our general assumptions about the bottles aren't safe, and that the bottleneck of the larger bottle could easily be large enough to insert a 3 gallon bottle.

    If the problem doesn't want the containers married, it should have specified it as impossible, not simply implied it.

    The issue is this: the "right" answer is tedious and boring. Bah, pour, empty, pour, empty. And it's tied to implementation- it'd be far more fun to solve the problem for any combination of containers and target volumes.

    What makes you think that the 3 gallon bottle fits inside the 5 gallon bottle? Surely that is as much of an assumption as determining the width of the hole. For all we know the 5 Gallon bottle may be spherical and the 3 Gallon bottle be cylindrical with a circumference of 1mm

  • Hi OJ (unregistered) in reply to Kempeth
    1. Fill the 3 gallon container and empty it into the 5 gallon container. 2. Ship it 3. If the customers complain tell them a one gallon upgrade will soom be available as version 1.1. 4. Sell 1.1 upgrades in packs of 3 by shipping them full 3 gallon containers and let them figure it out themself...

    FTW!

  • (cs) in reply to RogerInHawaii
    RogerInHawaii:
    Zapp Brannigan:
    alegr:
    AndersI:
    I would put the five gallon bottle on the scale and fill water into it until it is 4 kg heavier.
    Who would have thought one gallon weights one kilogram... Oh, wait...
    No one specified the planet. Are you assuming it's Earth?

    Ummm, kilogram is a measure of mass, not weight. Right? So it wouldn't matter what planet you're on, or even that you're on a planet.

    You might find it difficult to pour anything anywhere if you are not located on a planet, or at least another suitable celestial body providing a reasonable gravitational pull.

  • AndersI (unregistered) in reply to Bellinghman
    Bellinghman:
    You are allowed to assume certain things in these questions you know. Like the presence of air to breathe. Just not things that the original question said were not available.

    OK, so we improvise a balance scale from <something not explicitly forbidden>, get the ratio of the two bottles weight, fill up the 3 unit one, put the 5 unit one at the appropriate place and fill it until we have balance.

    (It was quite exciting being on the wrong end of cross-the-pond conversions)

  • PITA (unregistered)
    There are two water bottles. One can hold exactly three gallons and one can hold exactly five gallons. There is no scale, no dividing lines, and the bottles are odd shaped, meaning no visual measurement is possible. You can, however, empty and fill the bottles with water as many times as you want. How would you get four gallons of water?
    Out of the tap?
  • (cs) in reply to Capt. Obvious
    Capt. Obvious:
    Given shock absorbers, height changes as a function of weight.
    This only works if you are willing to accept underestimating by the weight of the landing gear itself.

    I'd suggest the more accurate method (though much more complex) would be sum of (tire pressure)x(contact patch area of tire) for all tires. (Still a small underestimation there since it won't include the weight of the tire that comprises the contact patch.)

  • (cs) in reply to Josephus
    Josephus:
    Name:
    For those who wonder about the bottles: 
    3 5 -- #1 and #2
---------------
0 5 -- fill #2
3 2 -- put 3 in #1
0 2 -- empty #1
2 0 -- empty #2 in #1
2 5 -- fill #2
3 4 -- fill #1 with #2

    wow, not hired. Inability to explain simple things in a comprehensible manner.

    wow, not hired. Inability to infer the meaning of a trivially obvious domain-specific notation.

Leave a comment on “All Over the Map, Odd Shaped Container, and The Ideal Pair Programmer”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article