shall we not

Friday, May 27, 2005

venn community

Had a crazy day yeasterday- left the house at 6.20 and didn't return until 10- i fell asleep pretty soon after that. On such a basis i'm taking today a bit easier. One of the things that struck me /we got taught in my teacher training thing was the importance of reflecting. I became aware that i can avoid by doing other stuff this completely or if it's soemthing bad reflect on it to the point where it comes unhealthy wallowing. A story used to illustrate this was when you record a session at Maida Vale, they don't use digital so it takes twenty minutes to rewind the tape after the performance and the tech describes it as thinking time for the musicians to think about their performance and if they want to change anything. It also shattered the illusions of live sessions- apparently even the band-dj discussion is pre-recorded.

Also discovered i can get free acadamic books as inspection copies- i ordered three immediately!

On the train read a great feature in the Times on Microsoft job interview questions which included:
- You have eight billiard balls. One of them is defective meaning it weighs more than the others. Using a balance how can you tell which is defective in two weighings?
- Why are manhole covers round not sqaure?
- How are m and m's made?
- How many points are there on the globe where by walking 1 mile south, 1 mile east and 1 mile north you reach the place you started?

Also, the thought of Steven Gerrard is reducing me to near tears.

9 Comments:

  • so what are the answers then?

    By Blogger dan, at 10:47 AM  

  • well, in weigh 1: weigh three and three. Fairly obvious after that.
    2: A circular manhole can't fall in on itself. 3: effectively infinite for the travelling one (once at the north pole- travelling in a wedge and infinite at the south pole as long as you start in the right place). 4: the m and m is a bit boring really involving moulds and then cement mixer style coating

    By Blogger hugh, at 12:23 PM  

  • completely unrelated topic: dude, my laptop has busted and i've lost all data from it including most of those eps i had for you. you may as well download them yourself now if you want them. email me if you want to know how... Ant

    By Blogger Ant, at 9:05 AM  

  • Maybe I'm really dumb but 1 seems very un-obvious to me!?!

    By Blogger Si, at 9:45 AM  

  • To quote the Times:
    "The solution arises because whenever the two pans are of equal weight, you can conclude that the defective ball is not in either pan. For the first weighing, pick any three balls and weigh them against any other three balls. If the balance finds the two pans, the defective ball must be the one of the two you didn't weigh."
    To add, if the first weigh in shows a discrepency, the three which were heavier must contain the defective ball. Therefore, for the last weigh, just pick two of the balls from those three. If they balance the defective ball is the one you didn't weigh. If not the heavier should be apparent at the weigh in.

    By Blogger hugh, at 10:12 AM  

  • doesn't that involve 3 weighs, not 2?

    By Blogger dan, at 10:32 AM  

  • now i get it, the scales are like those old fashioned balancing ones, right? i thought it meant like normal kitchen scales

    By Blogger dan, at 4:33 PM  

  • Not normally a fan of the Times, it just comes across as very bland, but got it on monday cos there wasn't anything else left and it had this absolutely brilliant bumper bank holiday prize crossword. Two days later and I'm still dreaming of being able to fill in an answer but it looks pretty cool!

    By Blogger Si, at 8:47 AM  

  • & don't forget the sudoku...
    what's the deal with steven gerrard by the way?

    By Blogger dan, at 10:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home