[project1dev] Re: BookModels

  • From: Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:26:58 -0700

well hey actually bah, we all have enough knowledge to make a minigame for
the hacking the automaton thing.  I don't have to rack Josh's brain hehe.

I guess it'd be like there's just weird looking objects on a circuit board
type thing with hoses connecting them.

you just move the hose connections or the objects around to get the desired
effect.

Either there is some kind of logic to it that you are short circuiting, or
the book refers to all the parts by name with crude diagrams and you have to
infer which pieces to do what to.

I think that's kind of how the general idea for it would have to work right?

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> hey neat idea!  we'll have to remember it.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hey Eric,
>>
>> maybe we can put something like this in the game
>>
>> the god of chaos vs the god of reason battling it out.
>>
>> we could even simulate their troops, one side using rules that play to the
>> long term odds and the other side using short term gambles to make big
>> victories
>>
>> maybe you can choose a side and help even the odds or something hehe
>>
>> Or we could have this be the core of an argument between some warriors and
>> some wizards or somethin
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:03 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> i wonder if given a fixed maximum amount of guesses (like if you had to
>>> get it in 7 guesses or 6) going 50/50 may not be optimal
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:02 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> or 70/30 the first two levels then 50/50
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:01 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> like say 70/30 the first time and 50/50 the rest of the way or whatnot
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:59 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> logically speaking i am sure you are right but i wonder if the end
>>>>>> results would be closer than we think, given a huge sample size?  like 
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> do you think the average difference would be using your method (the 
>>>>>> correct
>>>>>> one) vs my method (luck based) on 1000 cases?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> whats weird is you could seem like the gambler, relying on luck
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but also the "goin for bein right in the long term" with the large
>>>>>>> sample size is also playing the odds :P
>>>>>>>   On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Alan Wolfe 
>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> well you said "with a large enough sample size", in which case luck
>>>>>>>> means less and less the larger the sample size so in that way you are 
>>>>>>>> bound
>>>>>>>> to lose.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with 3 out of 5 i'd do it for fun but wouldnt put my life on the
>>>>>>>> line or anything (:
>>>>>>>>   On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:46 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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: