• stupid puzzler (unregistered)

    I generally hate those puzzles because they only accept a thinking process which is revealed by the answer held by the questioner.

    1. If we can make the assumption that we can detect the heat of a lightbulb in close proximity to others in a closed box then we may as well assume that we can use our x-ray vision or place our cellphone in there and take a video, roll in an MRI machine, etc.

    2. I do have black socks and brown socks. Some black ones have ridges, some do not. Some brown socks have stripes, some do not. Some socks are short, some are tall. Some socks have padding around the heel, some do not. You cannot randomly make a pair.

  • (cs) in reply to stupid puzzler
    stupid puzzler:
    I generally hate those puzzles because they only accept a thinking process which is revealed by the answer held by the questioner.

    1. If we can make the assumption that we can detect the heat of a lightbulb in close proximity to others in a closed box then we may as well assume that we can use our x-ray vision or place our cellphone in there and take a video, roll in an MRI machine, etc.

    2. I do have black socks and brown socks. Some black ones have ridges, some do not. Some brown socks have stripes, some do not. Some socks are short, some are tall. Some socks have padding around the heel, some do not. You cannot randomly make a pair.

    The puzzle also assumes that you care about matching socks. Any two socks are a pair.

  • Lucent (unregistered) in reply to The Bytemaster
    The Bytemaster:
    Jellineck:
    Lucent:
    VeryBestDeveloperNumber1:
    Mmm:
    LOL, it's funny because he has an accent!
    Racism, huh? I don't think I saw any mention of the interviewee's race. But yes, it's funny because he has an accent.
    No it's definitely racist because that's the way black people talk!
    I'm not sure he is black. He said "jarva", not purkles.
    I find the racisim comments funny. I was picturing a white guy in more of a cowboy hat... almost "southern gentleman" style.
    Oh, so if it's a white person with a manner of speaking that indicates a lack of education, it's because he's a "southern gentleman", whereas if he was black and uneducated it's because he's some ignorant ghetto-dwelling gangbanger! (Who will probably steal your wallet!)

    Notice how much more dignified fictional poor whites are than poor blacks. Racism is tearing this country apart!

  • (cs) in reply to Lucent
    Lucent:
    Oh, so if it's a white person with a manner of speaking that indicates a lack of education, it's because he's a "southern gentleman", whereas if he was black and uneducated it's because he's some ignorant ghetto-dwelling gangbanger! (Who will probably steal your wallet!)

    Notice how much more dignified fictional poor whites are than poor blacks. Racism is tearing this country apart!

    Now where do you get the idea that a southern accent indicates a lack of education? Might this indicate some bias on your part?

  • Raul (unregistered) in reply to Lucent
    Lucent:
    Racism is tearing this country apart!
    But I remember there was this guy elected who sold us Hope that all such badness would end if we just put a partially black guy in the "White" house.

    Actually I think what is tearing the country apart is a decades-long habit of spending way more than we can afford and just assuming we can pull unlimited amounts of cash out of rich people's pockets and they will never run out and will be happy as clams to cooperate instead of taking their money (and economic activity) elsewhere.

  • (cs)

    For the brainteaser, it probably would have been polite to mention that you'd heard that one before.

  • geoffrey (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    boog:
    QJo:
    One is almost tempted to say to the interviewer: "In such a set of circumstances, I would ask myself: What would Jesus do?"
    That ought to change the subject! On that note:

    Q: Why are manhole covers round? A: Because God made them that way.

    Hemorrhoids are sorta round, I guess...

    Seriously, I always assumed that made them more user-friendly because they don't need to be rotated during placing.

    Actually it's so the cover doesn't fall into the hole on top of the worker. A non-circular cover can be angled to fit into the hole it is intended to cover.

  • (cs) in reply to Raul
    Raul:
    Lucent:
    Racism is tearing this country apart!
    But I remember there was this guy elected who sold us Hope that all such badness would end if we just put a partially black guy in the "White" house.

    Yep. That's why I voted for Obama - because he said that him being black would solve all our problems.

    Actually I think what is tearing the country apart is a decades-long habit of spending way more than we can afford and just assuming we can pull unlimited amounts of cash out of rich people's pockets and they will never run out and will be happy as clams to cooperate instead of taking their money (and economic activity) elsewhere.

    Most interesting. Nothing to do with a retreat to idiot radicalism by partisan ideologues uninterested in negotiating a solution to serious problems, then?

  • Raul (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    Raul:
    Actually I think what is tearing the country apart is a decades-long habit of spending way more than we can afford and just assuming we can pull unlimited amounts of cash out of rich people's pockets and they will never run out and will be happy as clams to cooperate instead of taking their money (and economic activity) elsewhere.
    Most interesting. Nothing to do with a retreat to idiot radicalism by partisan ideologues uninterested in negotiating a solution to serious problems, then?
    Wow! You almost won me over by your thorough analysis, but then you called me an idiot, so F.U.

    And, by the way, when someone sticks a gun in my ribs and politely asks for my wallet, I'm not interested in negotiating a compromise. If I am pretty sure I can kill him in self defense, I would proudly do so, otherwise, I'll surrender and hope he generously spares my life. But either way, there is a winner and a loser. Some things you just don't compromise.

  • (cs)

    Why is my coment deleted?

  • (cs) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    Raul:
    Actually I think what is tearing the country apart is a decades-long habit of spending way more than we can afford and just assuming we can pull unlimited amounts of cash out of rich people's pockets and they will never run out and will be happy as clams to cooperate instead of taking their money (and economic activity) elsewhere.

    Most interesting. Nothing to do with a retreat to idiot radicalism by partisan ideologues uninterested in negotiating a solution to serious problems, then?

    Actually, you're both right. Raul has given a root cause. The thing you mention will be what's officially blamed.

  • Lucent (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf

    [quote user="trtrwtf"][quote user="Raul"][quote user="Lucent"]Racism is tearing this country apart![/quote]But I remember there was this guy elected who sold us Hope that all such badness would end if we just put a partially black guy in the "White" house. [/quote]Yep. That's why I voted for Obama - because he said that him being black would solve all our problems.[/quote]Sure it had nothing to do with making an ultimately meaningless symbolic gesture that race relations in America were finally resolved? Or were you additionally gullible by believing the lines about "transparency". Or his lines about opposing free trade, which he then told others that same night was just "campaign rhetoric". Sure it has nothing to do with believing a bunch of bold-faced lies and cheap slogans because they just sounded oh-so-good?

    [quote] Actually I think what is tearing the country apart is a decades-long habit of spending way more than we can afford and just assuming we can pull unlimited amounts of cash out of rich people's pockets and they will never run out and will be happy as clams to cooperate instead of taking their money (and economic activity) elsewhere.[/quote]Most interesting. Nothing to do with a retreat to idiot radicalism by partisan ideologues uninterested in negotiating a solution to serious problems, then?[/quote]Oh, yeah, recognizing that the current way of doing things is necessarily unworkable in the long term means one must have a particular attitude and support particular politicians. This is no middle ground, or compromise in this dichotomy, he's either on your perfectly reasonable side or with those guys, and embodies a caricature you read about in your favorite blogs on a daily basis.

  • (cs) in reply to Raul
    Raul:
    trtrwtf:
    Raul:
    Actually I think what is tearing the country apart is a decades-long habit of spending way more than we can afford and just assuming we can pull unlimited amounts of cash out of rich people's pockets and they will never run out and will be happy as clams to cooperate instead of taking their money (and economic activity) elsewhere.
    Most interesting. Nothing to do with a retreat to idiot radicalism by partisan ideologues uninterested in negotiating a solution to serious problems, then?
    Wow! You almost won me over by your thorough analysis, but then you called me an idiot, so F.U.

    I didn't call you an idiot. I asked if you thought the retreat to idiot radicalism - that is, unresponsive and reflexive radicalism for its own sake or for the sake of increasing the personal power of a few elites - might not have something to do with the decline in American politics. That is, does it contribute to "tearing America apart" when people retreat to their corners and refuse to participate in solving problems?

    You might be an idiot after all, I suppose, but so far I'm still trying to determine whether you're interested in having a conversation or just shouting anarchist slogans.

    And, by the way, when someone sticks a gun in my ribs and politely asks for my wallet, I'm not interested in negotiating a compromise. If I am pretty sure I can kill him in self defense, I would proudly do so, otherwise, I'll surrender and hope he generously spares my life. But either way, there is a winner and a loser. Some things you just don't compromise.

    Whoa, talk about persuasive logic. Since I don't think anyone's stuck a gun in your ribs and ask for your wallet lately, I think this is what's called "hyperbole". But if your best argument is to compare the legally elected government of this country to an armed bandit, I can only assume that you want to eliminate that government. So, you're an anarchist, that's fine. Let's hear an actual argument for repealing the US government, if that's what you favor. If it's not, then shut up with the bullshit and say what you actually mean, or just shut up entirely.

    Fair?

  • Lucent (unregistered) in reply to Lucent

    Bon of a Sitch

    Lucent:
    trtrwtf:
    Raul:
    Lucent:
    Racism is tearing this country apart!
    But I remember there was this guy elected who sold us Hope that all such badness would end if we just put a partially black guy in the "White" house.
    Yep. That's why I voted for Obama - because he said that him being black would solve all our problems.
    Sure it had nothing to do with making an ultimately meaningless symbolic gesture that race relations in America were finally resolved? Or were you additionally gullible by believing the lines about "transparency". Or his lines about opposing free trade, which he then told others that same night was just "campaign rhetoric". Sure it has nothing to do with believing a bunch of bold-faced lies and cheap slogans because they just sounded oh-so-good?
    Actually I think what is tearing the country apart is a decades-long habit of spending way more than we can afford and just assuming we can pull unlimited amounts of cash out of rich people's pockets and they will never run out and will be happy as clams to cooperate instead of taking their money (and economic activity) elsewhere.
    Most interesting. Nothing to do with a retreat to idiot radicalism by partisan ideologues uninterested in negotiating a solution to serious problems, then?
    Oh, yeah, recognizing that the current way of doing things is necessarily unworkable in the long term means one must have a particular attitude and support particular politicians. This is no middle ground, or compromise in this dichotomy, he's either on your perfectly reasonable side or with those guys, and embodies a caricature you read about in your favorite blogs on a daily basis.
  • (cs) in reply to Nagesh
    Nagesh:
    Why is my coment deleted?

    Question is, why aren't all of them deleted?

  • Lucent (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    I didn't call you an idiot. I asked if you thought the retreat to idiot radicalism - that is, unresponsive and reflexive radicalism for its own sake or for the sake of increasing the personal power of a few elites - might not have something to do with the decline in American politics.
    By "a few elites" - do you mean the bureaucrats who oversee the government programs with reactionaries are talking about repealing or the CEOs who run the evil corporations?
    trtrwtf:
    That is, does it contribute to "tearing America apart" when people retreat to their corners and refuse to participate in solving problems?
    It's clear you don't understand the opposing mentality when you make a statement like this. In their minds, the problem is the involvement of certain... undesirables. Like good fascists (and like you from other comments), they want the opportunity to exclude these undesirables, the idea being that THEY are the problem.
  • Godwin (unregistered)

    Isn't it about time for one of you guys to mention Hitler?

  • (cs) in reply to Lucent
    Lucent:
    Sure it had nothing to do with making an ultimately meaningless symbolic gesture that race relations in America were finally resolved? Or were you additionally gullible by believing the lines about "transparency". Or his lines about opposing free trade, which he then told others that same night was just "campaign rhetoric". Sure it has nothing to do with believing a bunch of bold-faced lies and cheap slogans because they just sounded oh-so-good?

    Actually, given his competition, you'd have had to show me video of Obama ritually disembowelling a boy scout with a spork to put me off voting for him.

    Really - a decrepit senator most known for his blatant and unrepentant corruption, and a drooling moron who couldn't even read a teleprompter? That's the best they could come up with? No, I don't think I was going to give them a chance at running things.

    Oh, yeah, recognizing that the current way of doing things is necessarily unworkable in the long term means one must have a particular attitude and support particular politicians. This is no middle ground, or compromise in this dichotomy, he's either on your perfectly reasonable side or with those guys, and embodies a caricature you read about in your favorite blogs on a daily basis.

    Actually, I was in fact referring to the flight from the center by both Tea Party morons (and you have to admit, there isn't an idea worth having there) and the usual gang of "progressives" lately squatting in various cities in this country. Surely you don't think there's any use in clinging to either of those posts? Doesn't it seem to you that these are what "tears America apart"? If you think that civil society is the problem, I'm waiting to hear someone make that case, but parodies involving barbarians ransacking your house just aren't moving me.

  • (cs) in reply to Godwin
    Godwin:
    Isn't it about time for one of you guys to mention Hitler?
    Not yet. Give them a few more minutes.
  • (cs) in reply to Lucent
    Lucent:
    trtrwtf:
    I didn't call you an idiot. I asked if you thought the retreat to idiot radicalism - that is, unresponsive and reflexive radicalism for its own sake or for the sake of increasing the personal power of a few elites - might not have something to do with the decline in American politics.
    By "a few elites" - do you mean the bureaucrats who oversee the government programs with reactionaries are talking about repealing or the CEOs who run the evil corporations?
    trtrwtf:
    That is, does it contribute to "tearing America apart" when people retreat to their corners and refuse to participate in solving problems?
    It's clear you don't understand the opposing mentality when you make a statement like this. In their minds, the problem is the involvement of certain... undesirables. Like good fascists (and like you from other comments), they want the opportunity to exclude these undesirables, the idea being that THEY are the problem.

    And there you have it. Godwin's right - everyone's Hitler, and it's time to go home anyway. Have a good Thanksgiving. Give me a yell if you ever decide you want to have an actual conversation.

  • Lucent (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    Really - a decrepit senator most known for his blatant and unrepentant corruption, and a drooling moron who couldn't even read a teleprompter? That's the best they could come up with? No, I don't think I was going to give them a chance at running things.
    So you'd prefer someone who has no idea what to do - he even said he doesn't understand economics - and ended up spending most of his time posturing for re-election?

    Fair enough if you think there were no good choices, but what does that lead us to? Picking the least of available evils, i.e. marginalizing government? A teabagger at heart!

    One last thing - by the time the protests were happening, wasn't America already being torn apart? The demonstrations are symptoms, not causes.

  • Lucent (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    Lucent:
    trtrwtf:
    I didn't call you an idiot. I asked if you thought the retreat to idiot radicalism - that is, unresponsive and reflexive radicalism for its own sake or for the sake of increasing the personal power of a few elites - might not have something to do with the decline in American politics.
    By "a few elites" - do you mean the bureaucrats who oversee the government programs with reactionaries are talking about repealing or the CEOs who run the evil corporations?
    trtrwtf:
    That is, does it contribute to "tearing America apart" when people retreat to their corners and refuse to participate in solving problems?
    It's clear you don't understand the opposing mentality when you make a statement like this. In their minds, the problem is the involvement of certain... undesirables. Like good fascists (and like you from other comments), they want the opportunity to exclude these undesirables, the idea being that THEY are the problem.
    And there you have it. Godwin's right - everyone's Hitler, and it's time to go home anyway. Have a good Thanksgiving. Give me a yell if you ever decide you want to have an actual conversation.
    I think you misunderstood me, but will probably never see this anyway. Too bad, you might have learned something.
  • Jerry (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    Tea Party morons (and you have to admit, there isn't an idea worth having there)
    Hint to those new to politics: insulting people doesn't bring them over to your side.

    Now, the "TEA" acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. If you think that idea isn't worth having, you must think we aren't taxed enough yet. Taxes need to be higher, according to you.

    Never mind that they're already much higher than they were, say, at most any time in the past. It seemed that things were working fairly well then. Why can't we reinstate tax and spend rates that have proven successful? Why is the very proposal so ridiculous that you consider it not worth having?

  • (cs)

    You guys realize "trtrwtf" is European, right?

  • Kivi (unregistered) in reply to geoffrey
    geoffrey:
    A non-circular cover can be angled to fit into the hole it is intended to cover.

    Not all non-circular covers. Any curve of constant width (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_of_constant_width) has this property.

  • (cs) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    Lucent:
    Oh, so if it's a white person with a manner of speaking that indicates a lack of education, it's because he's a "southern gentleman", whereas if he was black and uneducated it's because he's some ignorant ghetto-dwelling gangbanger! (Who will probably steal your wallet!)

    Notice how much more dignified fictional poor whites are than poor blacks. Racism is tearing this country apart!

    Now where do you get the idea that a southern accent indicates a lack of education? Might this indicate some bias on your part?

    It's the American (United States) accent which indicates a lack of education. We established that ages ago. I mean, the dumb fuckers haven't even learned to spell correctly.

  • (cs) in reply to Lucent
    Lucent:
    trtrwtf:
    Really - a decrepit senator most known for his blatant and unrepentant corruption, and a drooling moron who couldn't even read a teleprompter? That's the best they could come up with? No, I don't think I was going to give them a chance at running things.
    So you'd prefer someone who has no idea what to do - he even said he doesn't understand economics - and ended up spending most of his time posturing for re-election?

    Fair enough if you think there were no good choices, but what does that lead us to? Picking the least of available evils, i.e. marginalizing government? A teabagger at heart!

    One last thing - by the time the protests were happening, wasn't America already being torn apart? The demonstrations are symptoms, not causes.

    What I don't understand is why the US government doesn't take a well-established leaf out of Syria's book and tackle those nasty smelly untidy protesters once and for all. Come on, Obama! Use your much-vaunted army for something useful for once! It's not murder, it's extermination of vermin!

  • (cs) in reply to Jerry
    Jerry:
    trtrwtf:
    Tea Party morons (and you have to admit, there isn't an idea worth having there)
    Hint to those new to politics: insulting people doesn't bring them over to your side.

    Now, the "TEA" acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. If you think that idea isn't worth having, you must think we aren't taxed enough yet. Taxes need to be higher, according to you.

    Never mind that they're already much higher than they were, say, at most any time in the past. It seemed that things were working fairly well then. Why can't we reinstate tax and spend rates that have proven successful? Why is the very proposal so ridiculous that you consider it not worth having?

    Taxes do need to be higher. Where else does the money come from to run the whole shebang? But no - higher taxes won't get you elected to power because eveyrbody is too fucking selfish to think any further than their own fucking fat bastard cunt selves. Fuck off and die the fucking lot of you.

  • Aaaaaaaaa (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood

    One hopes you're not in charge of your family's budget. I can see it:

    "Well, sure, our expenses exceed our income. No, there's not a single thing we can cut back on - those $100 haircuts, those $10000 vacations, the filet mignon for dinner every night - every one of those is absolutely vital. So I guess let's plan to rob a couple of banks every day to make up the difference."

  • Jerry (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    Jerry:
    trtrwtf:
    Tea Party morons (and you have to admit, there isn't an idea worth having there)
    Hint to those new to politics: insulting people doesn't bring them over to your side.

    Now, the "TEA" acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. If you think that idea isn't worth having, you must think we aren't taxed enough yet. Taxes need to be higher, according to you.

    Never mind that they're already much higher than they were, say, at most any time in the past. It seemed that things were working fairly well then. Why can't we reinstate tax and spend rates that have proven successful? Why is the very proposal so ridiculous that you consider it not worth having?

    Taxes do need to be higher. Where else does the money come from to run the whole shebang? But no - higher taxes won't get you elected to power because eveyrbody is too fucking selfish to think any further than their own fucking fat bastard cunt selves. Fuck off and die the fucking lot of you.

    Where else does the money come from to run the whole shebang? Where did it come from back when taxes were lower -- much lower? Hint: We didn't throw bucketloads of money at every whining victim, in a complicated shell game that ensures politicians and their friends can skim off a healthy percentage.

    BTW it would take every cent earned by the over one million a year crowd to pay off one year's USA debt -- in fourteen years. So who are you going to drain when you run out of rich people?

  • stir mr pot (unregistered) in reply to geoffrey
    geoffrey:
    frits:
    boog:
    QJo:
    One is almost tempted to say to the interviewer: "In such a set of circumstances, I would ask myself: What would Jesus do?"
    That ought to change the subject! On that note:

    Q: Why are manhole covers round? A: Because God made them that way.

    Hemorrhoids are sorta round, I guess...

    Seriously, I always assumed that made them more user-friendly because they don't need to be rotated during placing.

    Actually it's so the cover doesn't fall into the hole on top of the worker. A non-circular cover can be angled to fit into the hole it is intended to cover.

    because I'm not American and don't care how badly the US is or isn't doing, I'll field this one....

    I'm sure I've seen some shapes (even discussed here, believe it or not, last time we had a "are puzzles stupid interview questions" fight) that also could not fall in. The most common being a triangular thingummy with rounded sides, but I believe there's a whole host of such shapes. Some geek will no doubt point out what they're called...

  • Jimmy (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    trtrwtf:
    Lucent:
    Oh, so if it's a white person with a manner of speaking that indicates a lack of education, it's because he's a "southern gentleman", whereas if he was black and uneducated it's because he's some ignorant ghetto-dwelling gangbanger! (Who will probably steal your wallet!)

    Notice how much more dignified fictional poor whites are than poor blacks. Racism is tearing this country apart!

    Now where do you get the idea that a southern accent indicates a lack of education? Might this indicate some bias on your part?

    It's the American (United States) accent which indicates a lack of education. We established that ages ago. I mean, the dumb fuckers haven't even learned to spell correctly.

    Once in a while (not very often), I agree with Master Westwood. This is one of those occasions.

  • Jimmy (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    Jerry:
    trtrwtf:
    Tea Party morons (and you have to admit, there isn't an idea worth having there)
    Hint to those new to politics: insulting people doesn't bring them over to your side.

    Now, the "TEA" acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. If you think that idea isn't worth having, you must think we aren't taxed enough yet. Taxes need to be higher, according to you.

    Never mind that they're already much higher than they were, say, at most any time in the past. It seemed that things were working fairly well then. Why can't we reinstate tax and spend rates that have proven successful? Why is the very proposal so ridiculous that you consider it not worth having?

    Taxes do need to be higher. Where else does the money come from to run the whole shebang? But no - higher taxes won't get you elected to power because eveyrbody is too fucking selfish to think any further than their own fucking fat bastard cunt selves. Fuck off and die the fucking lot of you.

    Prosecutor: Something must be done! War would mean a prohibitive increase in our taxes. Chicolini (Chico Marx): Hey, I got an uncle lives in Taxes. Prosecutor: No, I’m talking about taxes - money, dollars! Chicolini: Dollars! There’s-a where my uncle lives! Dollars, Taxes!

    We've done the same here. We started off in Texas, and somehow branched into one stream about racism in Texas, and one about Taxes....

  • Win Wan Soon (unregistered) in reply to Jerry
    Jerry:
    Matt Westwood:
    Jerry:
    trtrwtf:
    Tea Party morons (and you have to admit, there isn't an idea worth having there)
    Hint to those new to politics: insulting people doesn't bring them over to your side.

    Now, the "TEA" acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. If you think that idea isn't worth having, you must think we aren't taxed enough yet. Taxes need to be higher, according to you.

    Never mind that they're already much higher than they were, say, at most any time in the past. It seemed that things were working fairly well then. Why can't we reinstate tax and spend rates that have proven successful? Why is the very proposal so ridiculous that you consider it not worth having?

    Taxes do need to be higher. Where else does the money come from to run the whole shebang? But no - higher taxes won't get you elected to power because eveyrbody is too fucking selfish to think any further than their own fucking fat bastard cunt selves. Fuck off and die the fucking lot of you.

    Where else does the money come from to run the whole shebang? Where did it come from back when taxes were lower -- much lower? Hint: We didn't throw bucketloads of money at every whining victim, in a complicated shell game that ensures politicians and their friends can skim off a healthy percentage.

    BTW it would take every cent earned by the over one million a year crowd to pay off one year's USA debt -- in fourteen years. So who are you going to drain when you run out of rich people?

    China will own your asses long before that....

  • (cs) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    Actually, I was in fact referring to the flight from the center by both Tea Party morons (and you have to admit, there isn't an idea worth having there) and the usual gang of "progressives" lately squatting in various cities in this country.
    Thank you. I don't know whether you're serious or trolling, but either way the idea that there's a centre between the two US parties from which to flee is the best joke I've heard today.
    Lucent:
    So you'd prefer someone who has no idea what to do - he even said he doesn't understand economics - and ended up spending most of his time posturing for re-election?
    I think Mexico's constitutional limitation of presidents to one term of office is a great idea. Someone who doesn't have the possibility of being re-elected can afford to take some unpopular decisions.
    stir mr pot:
    I'm sure I've seen some shapes (even discussed here, believe it or not, last time we had a "are puzzles stupid interview questions" fight) that also could not fall in. The most common being a triangular thingummy with rounded sides, but I believe there's a whole host of such shapes. Some geek will no doubt point out what they're called...
    20p and 50p pieces.
  • DK (unregistered) in reply to mz001

    The one time that happened to me the company had already taken care of that prior to the interview stage. IIRC within a year of that their gross value went from 14 million to 3.5 million.

    You call THAT a sea story? The one time that happened to me, within 4 years the company market cap went from $24Billion to zero (hint: it was the first major bankruptcy of 2008).

  • Peter (unregistered) in reply to CrisW
    CrisW:
    Light bulbs don't give out any detectable heat any more. (well, not so that you could detect it by touch anyway.)
    Oh yes they do! I've just checked the low-energy light bulb over my desk. Admittedly, it wasn't hot enough to burn my hand (like an incandescent bulb would have been), but it was too hot to hold comfortably for more than a few seconds.
  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    Actually, I was in fact referring to the flight from the center by both Tea Party morons (and you have to admit, there isn't an idea worth having there) and the usual gang of "progressives" lately squatting in various cities in this country. Surely you don't think there's any use in clinging to either of those posts? Doesn't it seem to you that these are what "tears America apart"? If you think that civil society is the problem, I'm waiting to hear someone make that case, but parodies involving barbarians ransacking your house just aren't moving me.

    let's see, the Occupy whatever crowd wants:

    • glass steagal back
    • no corporate influence in elections
    • reduced corruption
    • and an economy where they can get jobs

    yep, just as nuts as the teabaggers.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to Jerry
    Jerry:
    Where else does the money come from to run the whole shebang? Where did it come from back when taxes were lower -- much lower? Hint: We didn't throw bucketloads of money at every whining victim, in a complicated shell game that ensures politicians and their friends can skim off a healthy percentage.

    BTW it would take every cent earned by the over one million a year crowd to pay off one year's USA debt -- in fourteen years. So who are you going to drain when you run out of rich people?

    Taxes are historically low - they haven't been this low since before ww2. During our period of prosperity, they were quite a bit higher, but corporations actually paid some of them.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to Raul
    Raul:
    But I remember there was this guy elected who sold us Hope that all such badness would end if we just put a partially black guy in the "White" house.

    And Rush called his wife 'uppity' yesterday. Go on, tell me this is Obama's fault.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to Lucent
    Lucent:

    Notice how much more dignified fictional poor whites are than poor blacks. Racism is tearing this country apart!

    White trash is somehow dignified?

  • Cesar Leharaday (unregistered) in reply to Lucent
    Lucent:
    The Bytemaster:
    Jellineck:
    Lucent:
    VeryBestDeveloperNumber1:
    Mmm:
    LOL, it's funny because he has an accent!
    Racism, huh? I don't think I saw any mention of the interviewee's race. But yes, it's funny because he has an accent.
    No it's definitely racist because that's the way black people talk!
    I'm not sure he is black. He said "jarva", not purkles.
    I find the racisim comments funny. I was picturing a white guy in more of a cowboy hat... almost "southern gentleman" style.
    Oh, so if it's a white person with a manner of speaking that indicates a lack of education, it's because he's a "southern gentleman", whereas if he was black and uneducated it's because he's some ignorant ghetto-dwelling gangbanger! (Who will probably steal your wallet!)

    Notice how much more dignified fictional poor whites are than poor blacks. Racism is tearing this country apart!

    Why do I think you are the fox getting her knickers in a twisat over nothing again....

  • NPSF3000 (unregistered) in reply to geoffrey
    geoffrey:
    NPSF3000:
    geoffrey:

    You are looking at the puzzle from only one perspective. Try instead to look at the value to a leader who values efficiency and common sense in his team.

    How about the perspective of hiring a programmer who is more than happy to use undocumented and unreliable side-effects of systems?

    Though it's a good question for a hacker :P

    Or from the perspective of hiring someone who just gets things done. I don't care how it's done; I just want results.

    Standing in front of a whiteboard all day does not lead to results.

    I bet you use:

    for (int i =0; i<100000; i++);

    To implement:

    Sleep(1000);

    And then wonder why your game speed varies machine to machine, compiler to compiler, etc...

    Good coding shouldn't break the second one of the unspecified effects change - e.g. the lights turn out to be efficient LED.

  • Rnd( (unregistered)

    The lightbulbs...

    How much time do I have? I could burn one for let's say 1M hours, or other long time so it breaks. Other solution is to cycle it 100k-1M times. Then I just leave one on. Go in find the one which isn't broken remove it replace with other one. And find out which one works. Simple.

  • (cs) in reply to Jerry
    Jerry:
    Matt Westwood:
    Jerry:
    trtrwtf:
    Tea Party morons (and you have to admit, there isn't an idea worth having there)
    Hint to those new to politics: insulting people doesn't bring them over to your side.

    Now, the "TEA" acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. If you think that idea isn't worth having, you must think we aren't taxed enough yet. Taxes need to be higher, according to you.

    Never mind that they're already much higher than they were, say, at most any time in the past. It seemed that things were working fairly well then. Why can't we reinstate tax and spend rates that have proven successful? Why is the very proposal so ridiculous that you consider it not worth having?

    Taxes do need to be higher. Where else does the money come from to run the whole shebang? But no - higher taxes won't get you elected to power because eveyrbody is too fucking selfish to think any further than their own fucking fat bastard cunt selves. Fuck off and die the fucking lot of you.

    Where else does the money come from to run the whole shebang? Where did it come from back when taxes were lower -- much lower? Hint: We didn't throw bucketloads of money at every whining victim, in a complicated shell game that ensures politicians and their friends can skim off a healthy percentage.

    BTW it would take every cent earned by the over one million a year crowd to pay off one year's USA debt -- in fourteen years. So who are you going to drain when you run out of rich people?

    So you shouldn't have spent what you didn't have when you didn't have it. Your fucking debt, you fucking pay it.

  • (cs) in reply to Aaaaaaaaa
    Aaaaaaaaa:
    One hopes you're not in charge of your family's budget. I can see it:

    "Well, sure, our expenses exceed our income. No, there's not a single thing we can cut back on - those $100 haircuts, those $10000 vacations, the filet mignon for dinner every night - every one of those is absolutely vital. So I guess let's plan to rob a couple of banks every day to make up the difference."

    I see your quote is technically in reply to me. I cut my own hair, it's a low-maintenance number-three. As for a vacation, haven't had one for over ten years. And I have steak perhaps once a week.

  • (cs) in reply to Cesar Leharaday
    Cesar Leharaday:
    Lucent:
    The Bytemaster:
    Jellineck:
    Lucent:
    VeryBestDeveloperNumber1:
    Mmm:
    LOL, it's funny because he has an accent!
    Racism, huh? I don't think I saw any mention of the interviewee's race. But yes, it's funny because he has an accent.
    No it's definitely racist because that's the way black people talk!
    I'm not sure he is black. He said "jarva", not purkles.
    I find the racisim comments funny. I was picturing a white guy in more of a cowboy hat... almost "southern gentleman" style.
    Oh, so if it's a white person with a manner of speaking that indicates a lack of education, it's because he's a "southern gentleman", whereas if he was black and uneducated it's because he's some ignorant ghetto-dwelling gangbanger! (Who will probably steal your wallet!)

    Notice how much more dignified fictional poor whites are than poor blacks. Racism is tearing this country apart!

    Why do I think you are the fox getting her knickers in a twisat over nothing again....

    Funny, I was just about to say: Where's lucidfox to lighten the atmosphere again when you need hi/r?

  • (cs)

    The interviewers viewpoint from 'the Wrong Major':

    "As I usually do to break the ice and try to get the candidate to relax, I started with a bit of small talk about his hobbies and school. This was going OK, but he kept telling over-long stories and didn't seem able to read my disinterest so I decided to try and change track and see how he approached problem solving with one of my stock brain teasers. He went through the motions but had clearly heard it before, so I commented "You must have heard that one before?" The response was a surly silence.

    We moved on, discussed his technical abilities, but then he went back to his long-winded monologues: this time about the minutiae of Oracle. I scrabbled in my head for another brainteaser that could move this interview onwards, eventually coming up with the old lightbulbs in a box one. Again he'd clearly seen it before though he pretended to go through the steps of working it out. I looked at him quizically but he had the chutzpah to pretend he didn't know what I meant.

    I went back to his resume to remind myself what his Major was in, and asked him what his studies in Systems Integration were like. He outlined the course work, which covered areas closer to Systems Design when used in industry. When I pointed that out to him and asked him to tell me about the Systems Integration work they had done he got very defensive, and started lecturing me all about the course contents - as if I havn't been working in real world Systems Design & Integration for the last 15 years. When I again pointed out his error he got very sulky and quiet, so I wound the interview up as quickly as possible: there's no point in having argumentative engineers who can never accept there's two sides to every discussion on your team!"

  • Jammin' (unregistered)

    For the light bulbs: if they're incandescents, couldn't you just look at them to see which one is broken? You don't even need to touch the light switches; just take each one out of it's socket and shake it a little. The one that is broken will make a swishing noise as the broken tungsten wire piece moves about.

  • geoffrey (unregistered) in reply to NPSF3000
    NPSF3000:
    geoffrey:
    NPSF3000:
    geoffrey:

    You are looking at the puzzle from only one perspective. Try instead to look at the value to a leader who values efficiency and common sense in his team.

    How about the perspective of hiring a programmer who is more than happy to use undocumented and unreliable side-effects of systems?

    Though it's a good question for a hacker :P

    Or from the perspective of hiring someone who just gets things done. I don't care how it's done; I just want results.

    Standing in front of a whiteboard all day does not lead to results.

    I don't work on games. That is frivolous use of time. My team creates enterprise solutions; it's far too high-level to waste time worrying about what compilers are doing.

    I bet you use:

    for (int i =0; i<100000; i++);

    To implement:

    Sleep(1000);

    And then wonder why your game speed varies machine to machine, compiler to compiler, etc...

    Good coding shouldn't break the second one of the unspecified effects change - e.g. the lights turn out to be efficient LED.

Leave a comment on “More Limitin', Wrong Major, and Parallel Universe Replacement”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article