[project1dev] Re: BookModels
- From: eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:46:18 -0400
batman's got all the tools, all the preparations, all the knowledge,
experience...
...but the green hornet had the moves :)
Hey alan! 1 on 1, your mathematical precision vs. my reliance on luck, best
3 out of 5, john henry vs the steam engine man, lets rock this joint and
settle it old school
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> well you can do what you want, but the code is gonna do a binary search if
> it has to search for somethin, and it will be FASTER because of it hehe
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:43 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> this all goes back to the green hornet vs batman argument
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Matthew Morgan <MMorgan@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>
>>> Not saying that at all. But what fun is it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
>>> project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Alan Wolfe
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 01, 2009 1:41 PM
>>>
>>> *To:* project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> *Subject:* [project1dev] Re: BookModels
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> yeah, logic never works (;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Matthew Morgan <MMorgan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Theyre too logical.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
>>> project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Alan Wolfe
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 01, 2009 1:40 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> *To:* project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> *Subject:* [project1dev] Re: BookModels
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> lol i dont think so :P
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:39 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> ya cuz they are cowards, no guts no glory man
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> well check it out
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> in computer science they teach this method as the quick way to search for
>>> something in a sorted list (it's called a binary search).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They don't teach or even mention trying the first third to "get lucky" or
>>> anything.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure it's just the best way period
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:34 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> im thinking about it like w/ bayem's theorem
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> The bigger the sample group, the less luck matters so i think itd be in
>>> the smaller sample groups that it had a chance of doing worse
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:30 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> it is mathematically the most efficient but i bet if you counted on a
>>> little luck in combination w/ a system like that you could get it quicker
>>> and have a quicker average if you ran a series of tests enough to get a big
>>> sample group
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure it is
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:09 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> hey alan... i think we should make you have to get it in a couple places
>>> less than optimal.
>>>
>>> wait, hey alan, are you SURE that is the most efficient way?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:05 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> it could be like for a password for a backalley secret club
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey you know what would be a cool puzzle to put somewhere too would be
>>> the number guessing game
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IE someone is thinking of a number between X and Y and you have to guess
>>> it within so many guesses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Whenever you guess, they tell you higher or lower.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The most efficient way to solve it is by starting in the middle and
>>> seeing if higher or lower and chopping the resulting numbers down the middle
>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We could make it so you have enough guesses that usign the "optimal
>>> solution" could get you there for sure, and so that way you could either
>>> guess at it til you got it right, or if you knew the "trick" you could get
>>> through it first time
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:00 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> i think this will be really good too because it gives people an option
>>> other than trial and error when building hteir character. a really neat
>>> trick to find right off the bat!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sounds rad, let me sponge some knowledge from josh and see if i can come
>>> up w/ some basics for you to refine etc
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:50 AM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> hey alan i think thats a great idea and i think it'd be a funny little
>>> minigame puzzle. because its steam powered we could make it be about
>>> connecting the right hoses and pipes together, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Cool that would be fun (:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We could make it where you actually are confronted with a simplified sort
>>> of circuit board and have to literally hack it like you chip devices, or how
>>> you do hardware hacking (bridging connections and things).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you like that idea, we could base it on the real thing. I know you've
>>> done chipping. I know a little about how logic circuits work, Josh knows a
>>> lot more about the details of hardware circuit design though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We could probably design somethin kinda neat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And, we already have the ability to make a 2d user interface come up for
>>> such things. We'd just have to set it up in such a way where it would be
>>> controller friendly as well
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:23 AM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> laying on the bookshelf... hey i have a pretty sweet idea in regards to
>>> this...
>>>
>>> one of the books could be accessible and by picking it up (using it) you
>>> would learn how to sabotage the automaton and maybe by doing that instead of
>>> the questions defining your character you'd be able to manually do it (for
>>> those people that would prefer that) and it'd be neat cuz youd do it by
>>> hacking an analog device
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Eric are these books gonna be in the book case or lyin around on the
>>> ground?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:34 AM, katie cook <ktmcook@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sounds good. I will put something together. =)
>>>
>>> --- On *Wed, 7/1/09, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: [project1dev] Re: BookModels
>>> To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 5:56 AM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> books look great katie, i like them. How about if we put titles on the
>>> cover? we could have fortune telling with some kinda mysterious logo, tarot
>>> card books, along with maybe a maintance manual for the Fortune Teller 2000
>>> - complete automated predictor of the future :)
>>>
>>> you dont have to but it might be nice for a little "flavor"
>>>
>>> what do you think?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:55 AM, katie cook
>>> <ktmcook@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc361.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ktmcook@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Guys,
>>>
>>> Here is a snapshot of the book models I have done. I am going to work on
>>> making that folder that Alan/Chris mentioned and helped with. I didn't have
>>> a chance to tinker with it tonight, but should be able to work in out in the
>>> next couple of days. I will upload the stuff into there when I get it worked
>>> out.
>>>
>>> Have a good night guys. =)
>>>
>>> Katie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
>>>
>>> This e-mail is the property of Oakley Inc. It is intended only for the
>>> person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that
>>> is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
>>> Distribution or copying of this e-mail, or the information contained herein,
>>> to anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
