On my way to work in a morning, I travel on the train.  A company called METRO produce a free paper for train travellers. In the back, they have crosswords and quizzes but produce 3 different questions everyday in the Think Tank.
Last Thursday, there was a question printed, which I thought may be slightly relevant to topics posted on this site in the last few months.  I nearly got it right, I was on the right lines.
I will post the answer when I get a few answers/guesses from members, to see if they can get it.
The question is as follows:

It has 30 billion parts and its total storage capacity is around 4 million megabytes (4 terabytes).  Its distributed network handles 86 million bits of data every day via electric signals synchronised by a data bus that operates at a frequency of 40Hz.  It processes 100,000-pixel images in focus at 25 frames/sec in 2 million colours.  What is it?

Is it "living" or human-made?  ;D ;D ;D Darn, I need a book on anatomy...  :P *g* mine has only one neuron...  ;D

I think it can be the human brain????   really i don`t know. its only a theory  :P

I'm afraid that patience is wrong, and that it IS the Human Brain.  ;D

These extracts are taken from the official World Medical Journals, so I wouldn't doubt or question their theories as incorrect! ::)

It also proves that the human eye DOES ONLY see ~24/25 fps as that is the maximum the brain can detects and acknowledges. ;D

If you enjoy these brain teasers so much, I will ask FalconFly if it would be ok for me to post some more up for members to 'exercise their thoughts'.  

Nice try everyone, most of you were on the right track.

Oh I forgot,

Well done P200. Top marks go to you. :D

I think my answer was more cryptic than your question then. Have I mistranslated neuron?  ;D

It was sooooooooo easy! The 25 fps made me think about the eye... but then again.. the eye can't store anything...  ::) (well, the retina latency... ehm, another story)

And patience actually approved the numbers, didn't denied them. Am I missing something?

I still suggest, that we then limit the Framerates to 25fps in every Game and on every Display Device then...

...and await the onstorm of pissed-off Gamers (since we just made about every Game on earth unplayable) ;)

Falcon's right! That would be terrible. I think the keyword here is focus. Maybe the eye can follow 25 focused images per second. But it requires a lot more for a liquid motion.

Hey, janskjaer - do you live in the U.K.? ???

The FREE METRO paper is also on public transport in my city (Newcastle Upon Tyne - U.K.). ;)

Just wondering? :P

Sigh!  :-/

As I mentioned in another topic, the reason games are using 60fps a second is as a 'buffer conditioner'.

60fps wrapped around the 25fps the brain takes in, makes these frames look smoother and faster as the eye takes them in.  Simply running a game with 25fps, doesn't provide the smooth transition between each frame swap, as 40 or 50 frames would.

not again!!! thought we clarified it somewhere else in here... :'(
anyway, gimme more of this stuff james!  ;D

Anyway, Micha, here's a double-challenge: "It disappears when you speak its name; what is it?"

I quoted the riddle from memory. The 2nd challenge is to discover the movie I extracted this riddle from...  :P

wrote on 25.03.04 at 14:47:38:

Anyway, Micha, here's a double-challenge: "It disappears when you speak its name; what is it?"

silence

About the eye thingie: let's clarify this once and for all.

There is a nifty demo in FastVoodoo... I forgot which version -- 4.0 GE (XP), I think! Try it and then tell me 30 FPS are sufficient.

There's also an explanation there (about the brain taking a heavy load to interpolate between images at low FPS).

wrote on 25.03.04 at 21:11:32:

silence

right

Ok, Micha here goes:  ;)

Some water is in a strong bottle.

(a) How could you make the H2O level fall without heating, moving the bottle or changing the amount of water inside?

(b) How could you make the H2O level rise under the same conditions and without putting anything else inside?

wrote on 26.03.04 at 14:27:34:

Ok, Micha here goes:  ;) Some water is in a strong bottle. (a) How could you make the H2O level fall without heating, moving the bottle or changing the amount of water inside? (b) How could you make the H2O level rise under the same conditions and without putting anything else inside?

by dropping and picking up the bottle?

wrote on 26.03.04 at 20:32:35:

by dropping and picking up the bottle?

How could you make the H2O level fall without heating, moving the bottle or changing the amount of water inside?

Come on amp_man, put your brain into gear and give me at least a half valid response!  ;D

The bottle of water is in a pressure chamber... ;)

1. Pressure rises, water level is compressed (get's lower). ::)

2. Pressure falls, water level expands (get's higher) ::)

Nuff said! 8)

Quote:

The bottle of water is in a pressure chamber...   1. Pressure rises, water level is compressed (get's lower).   2. Pressure falls, water level expands (get's higher)   Nuff said!

Liquids don't get pressurised, gases do (and I think Ihave some :-[)
Anyway, why don't you wait for it to evaporate ???

wrote on 27.03.04 at 19:06:55:

Liquids don't get pressurised, gases do (and I think Ihave some :-[) Anyway, why don't you wait for it to evaporate ???

Nope, you're wrong, paul's got it. If you pressurize the bottle, the air pressure will force the liquid to take up less space, and if you create a vacuum inside the bottle, you can actually get it to the point where the H₂O will become vapor. Should have thought about that, we were playing with a pressure cooker and vacuum sealed comressor about a month ago in physics.

EDIT: nothing can evaporate in a "strong bottle", unless it has a way to escape.

For all I know, Water in its liquid form cannot be compressed ???

If you manage to pull out a 10 Liter buck of Water from 11000 Metres depth, it should still occupy a volume of 10 Liters on the surface...

And that's an area exposed to a hydrostatic pressure of 11000 metric tons (tons per m²), or for the US System 7.1 Tons per Sqare inch (!)

---------------
edit

Well, I'll be damned ;D
Water can be compressed, but the pressures required to do so, simply don't exist in our nature.
So it is usually referred to as "uncompressable", but technically, it is possible.
(albeit somewhat theoretic)

wrote on 26.03.04 at 14:27:34:

(a) How could you make the H2O level fall without heating, moving the bottle or changing the amount of water inside?

Cool the bottle to 4 ºC, at this temperature water reaches its maximum density -> lower volume, lower level.


wrote on 26.03.04 at 14:27:34:

(b) How could you make the H2O level rise under the same conditions and without putting anything else inside?

Freeze the bottle to 0º C, density of ice is lower than of liquid water -> higher volume, higher level.

oh sorry, was off for some days..
anyway, can i damage the bottle?  ;D

just a joke  ;)
i guess batracio is right. maybe you have to cool the bottle even more for (b), dependent on the temperature at the beginning..

wrote on 29.03.04 at 09:53:40:

just a joke  ;) i guess batracio is right. maybe you have to cool the bottle even more for (b), dependent on the temperature at the beginning..

At 0 Celsius, you'll have a mixture of water and ice (it's an equilibrium). Under 0 Celsius, you'll get ice!

The thing is, you need to stick to water. I believe batracio is right. The water has this anomaly, just like Bismuth (Bi). And Falcon is also right: the water is not compressible. Not in practice!

Anyway if cooling is the answer, the whole riddle sounds kinda lame, cos cooling is exact the opposite of heating, but both of them imply heat (or lack thereof). Any sane person that knows things dilate when heated, do also know of this water anomaly.

wrote on 27.03.04 at 14:34:19:

The bottle of water is in a pressure chamber... ;) 1. Pressure rises, water level is compressed (get's lower). ::) 2. Pressure falls, water level expands (get's higher) ::) Nuff said! 8)

agrelaphon is correct, the water cannot be pressurised to make the H2O level rise or fall, still have same volume. :P
Next..

wrote on 27.03.04 at 23:36:00:

Cool the bottle to 4 ºC, at this temperature water reaches its maximum density -> lower volume, lower level. Freeze the bottle to 0º C, density of ice is lower than of liquid water -> higher volume, higher level.

Incorrect, but very close!  ;)

Your part B answer is closer to the answer, than your first part.

Because what happens if the temperature is already set to 4 degrees celcius? :P

batracio is wrong, but is on the right lines and sooo close! ;)

I'll give it a week, starting today.  If no-one gets the answer, I will post it.

I'm also giving it a week cos I'm on holiday over the next few days and I'll be out of contact! So I'll see you soon! :D

wrote on 29.03.04 at 16:37:57:

batracio is wrong

Batracio is RIGHT. That might not be the answer to your riddle, but batracio is right, nevertheless!

I think I know the answer to your riddle. I guess I missed the semantic differences between water and H2O. Water is more than H2O; it is H2O in liquid form.

Anyway, it IS related to thermal properties of water (and I use water loosely here).

And since your riddle is a mixture of scientific facts and gotchas, one could argue that -- philosophically speaking -- water = 99% H2O (more or less). ;D

Pure H2O is bad for health: try drinking distilled water for a while. Fishes die in pure H2O.

PS: and ice could dilate so much, that it can break the bottle. Every car driver knows that! ;D So I'm wondering, how "hard" is your bottle?

PPS: this reduces to a problem where the initial conditions matter.

Next.

yeah.. ;D
& what about the environment's temperature? i suppose it being @ normal room temps, i.e. 19-21°C. daniel, i think we can set water=H₂O in this case, as i don't think it has anything to do w/ the water consistence..

Alright, this is my last shot at this one: Electrolyze it? If you pass an electrical current through water, it will break down into H₂ and O₂, which would effectively reduce the H₂O level. I don't know about the other part, though.

amp_man, that would mean to change the amount of water in the bottle & that's not allowed..well, if it was, this would be the answer --> i can remember some experiment we made back in school/chemistry to undo the electrolyzation..but don't ask me how to.  :-/

wrote on 01.04.04 at 15:22:04:

amp_man, that would mean to change the amount of water in the bottle & that's not allowed..well, if it was, this would be the answer --> i can remember some experiment we made back in school/chemistry to undo the electrolyzation..but don't ask me how to.  :-/

Well, to undo electrolyzation, you burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen, the byproduct is H₂O. And since the hydrogen and oxygen would most likely be in with the remaining H₂O, I think that technically qualifies as water. We'll see!


Quote:

(a) How could you make the H2O level fall without heating, moving the bottle or changing the amount of water inside?

wrote on 02.04.04 at 23:18:06:

Well, to undo electrolyzation, you burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen, the byproduct is H2O. And since the hydrogen and oxygen would most likely be in with the remaining H2O, I think that technically qualifies as water. We'll see!

sure, but i thought this way shares some loss of water, anyway. i was thinking of some device to do it..damn, i just can't remember!  ???

Hmm, it only makes sense that if you break it down into its parts, it should combine into the same amount (think of the law of conservation of matter). This is turning into a very puzzling riddle. I know that batracio's way would work, I'm just trying to think how else you could do it...

james said batracio was close, so i'll stay on it...is there another physical or chemical peculiarity for H₂O?

wrote on 03.04.04 at 21:17:34:

james said batracio was close, so i'll stay on it...is there another physical or chemical peculiarity for H2O?

well...

H2O when changed from the liquid to the solid form is unique. It forms 5-sided crystals, which are larger than 5 molecules of H2O just floating. This makes ice actually less dense than water, which is why it floats in a cup. 4^o is where H2O is the densest out of all of it's possible states, unlike most compunds, which are most dense in the solid state. In addition, water is not pure H2O, it also includes some other minerals and about 0.01% ions, I think (I slept a lot during this unit in chemistry). These ions are H⁺ and OH^-, which as you might recognize, are what distinguises a base and an acid (an acid has an extra H⁺ ion, such as HCl, Hydrochloric Acid, which can combine with an OH^- ion to form water and chlorine gas, Cl₂, and similarly for a base). Hmm, that might give you a couple ideas, but I'd need to think more about it, and I really need to go right now! Hope this helps some (and that I'm not completely wrong).

oh well...i stated it mustn't have to do something with H₂O is not = water, maybe i have to correct myself, as it seems the only way to solve the damn riddle..
but as you cannot change the amount inside, this would also mean - no matter if pure H₂O or natural water is inside the bottle - you needn't to take it out on a molecule-level..but let's see: maybe there's any experiment doing something with the minerals or additional ions? to stick to batracio's solution- w/ changing the temperature?

wrote on 30.03.04 at 22:43:52:

Alright, this is my last shot at this one: Electrolyze it?

Hehehe! Nice shot! ;D I believe pure H2O (no ions no minerals no nothing except H2O at perfect equilibrium) can't be electrolyzed.  ::) Besides, you can't elecrolyze it without electrodes, right?  :P Which means sticking something into the water (ehm... yes, water... whatever).

You people have waay too much time on your hands

Right, batracio was wrong.....to the question I was asking, that was not the answer that was needed.  Maybe for an incorrect answer, but I was after a correct one. ::)  

Answer:

(a) Add salt - this causes the water molecules to pack together more tightly and the water level will fall very slightly.

(b) Freeze it - e.g. by packing dry ice around the bottle, since ice expands.


This was the answer and the  ONLY answer I was looking for! Please do not try to correct me, as this is the correct answer.  I will ignore any claims trying to correct me on this. ;)

wrote on 05.04.04 at 10:51:03:

Hehehe! Nice shot! ;D I believe pure H2O (no ions no minerals no nothing except H2O at perfect equilibrium) can't be electrolyzed.  ::) Besides, you can't elecrolyze it without electrodes, right?  :P Which means sticking something into the water (ehm... yes, water... whatever).

Yes, but he never said anything about not sticking anything in the water, but he did state that it was H₂O (and you're correct, pure H₂O will not electrolyze). Now I get to mess with wordings:


Quote:

(a) How could you make the H2O level fall without heating, moving the bottle or changing the amount of water inside?

Quote:

Answer: (a) Add salt - this causes the water molecules to pack together more tightly and the water level will fall very slightly

Chemically speaking, this answer is also wrong. When pure table salt, NaCl, is added to water, it breaks down into Cl^- and Na⁺ ions, which then react with the water to form HCl, O₂, and Na⁺ ions, which are not natuarally found in water, so therefore you have changed the amount of water inside :P Still, this is a much better answer than dropping the bottle  :-/


Quote:

(b) How could you make the H2O level rise under the same conditions and without putting anything else inside?

Quote:

(b) Freeze it - e.g. by packing dry ice around the bottle, since ice expands.

Batracio's answer was basically the same thing, except he was under the assumption that by changing the amount of "water" inside, you also meant not changing it into the ice form. So, this answer would also not work, since "under the same conditions", "changing the amount of water inside" is not allowed, and ice is not water, water is the liquid form.

Words are such fun to play around with  ;D  ;)

EDIT:

Quote:

This was the answer and the  ONLY answer I was looking for! Please do not try to correct me, as this is the correct answer.  I will ignore any claims trying to correct me on this. ;)

lol, the truth is so often ignored  ::)

wrote on 05.04.04 at 22:00:27:

Yes, but he never said anything about not sticking anything in the water, but he did state that it was H2O (and you're correct, pure H2O will not electrolyze). Now I get to mess with wordings: Chemically speaking, this answer is also wrong. When pure table salt, NaCl, is added to water, it breaks down into Cl- and Na+ ions, which then react with the water to form HCl, O2, and Na+ ions, which are not natuarally found in water, so therefore you have changed the amount of water inside :P Still, this is a much better answer than dropping the bottle  :-/ Batracio's answer was basically the same thing, except he was under the assumption that by changing the amount of "water" inside, you also meant not changing it into the ice form. So, this answer would also not work, since "under the same conditions", "changing the amount of water inside" is not allowed, and ice is not water, water is the liquid form. Words are such fun to play around with  ;D  ;) EDIT: lol, the truth is so often ignored  ::)

Your playing with words!   ;D Accept it! The answer has been given to you, if salt has been added, how does that mean that I have added extra water!? :P

It's heartbreaking when some people don't accept a valid answer. ::)

amp_man, didn't you read my answer! Pack dry ice around the bottle!

And no, you don't get to mess with the wordings of the question, as there would be no question left to answer once modified! :P

CASE CLOSED.

wrote on 06.04.04 at 10:04:01:

CASE CLOSED.

Whoa! I guess this makes you the holder of the absolute truth, then!

A friend of mine said "People who rant has nothing left to say".

I believe that particular riddle belongs to some other thread, named Think Tomb (or Think Tenebrae). I shall explain myself...

You asked batracio:
Quote:

Because what happens if the temperature is already set to 4 degrees celcius?

Then I ask you: what if your water (ehm!) is already saturated with salt? You never said anything about the quality of water, now did you?

PS: another thing:
Quote:

if salt has been added, how does that mean that I have added extra water!?

Make sure you add extra/super/mega dried salt, otherwise...

Quote:

amp_man, didn't you read my answer! Pack dry ice around the bottle!

Yes I did, you didn't read my response! When you change water to it's solid form, it's no longer called water, it's called ice. So you've effectively gotten rid of some of the water! Grr, read my response again!

This discussion was more than a delight. Congratulations to everyone who was so clear in their statements, and so scientific!

Now back to the problem....

Problem: Some water is in a strong bottle.

(a) How could you make the H2O level fall without heating, moving the bottle or changing the amount of water inside?

(b) How could you make the H2O level rise under the same conditions and without putting anything else inside?


Answer:

(a) Add salt - this causes the water molecules to pack together more tightly and the water level will fall very slightly.

(b) Freeze it - e.g. by packing dry ice around the bottle, since ice expands.


Comment:
First answer is problematic, since you really need super-ultra dry salt, otherwise it would always contain water. And since as soon as you take one spoon of this super-dry salt from a container, it attracts water from the environment, so  practically, almost never will you succeed in throwing salt in that bottle without adding water (in theory, ideal is possible so...)...

Second answer: if that bottle is not maked from glass (never mentioned this in the problem) then it could be a refractory material, like some sort of ceramics. That way, the water would never freeze, because the dry ice would be melted long before the temperature drops below 0 inside the bottle. Also, if you have a super-heat-conductor material it is not impossible that the heat would be transmitted so fast that you either obtain super-quick freezing of water inside the bottle, and/or immediately the water defreeze, since the environment is much hotter and can make the water absorb the heat very fast (super-heat conductive materials).

And the final problems: H20 is not water. Commonly it is accepted, but physically it's not. So, how you transform H20-water in your problem??? And also, some chemical reactions are not so certain when you have H20 as when you have water (the salt problem since you have H and O are equilibrated in H2O, and thus wouldn't react with salt).

And definitively I see no sense in things like "this is the final answer". A problem generally has tons of answers, and what is right or wrong is judged by the known figures from reality inside your mind, not those not yet seen.

wrote on 06.04.04 at 11:16:52:

Whoa! I guess this makes you the holder of the absolute truth, then! A friend of mine said "People who rant has nothing left to say".

Who's ranting? I suggest it was those who wasn't willing to accept the answer that I gave.  :P


Quote:

I believe that particular riddle belongs to some other thread, named Think Tomb (or Think Tenebrae). I shall explain myself...

You were saying about ranting?!  ::)


Quote:

You asked batracio: Then I ask you: what if your water (ehm!) is already saturated with salt? You never said anything about the quality of water, now did you?

I never recall mentioning saltwater in my question! ;D Just the old fashioned kind of water, normal water! :P


Quote:

PS: another thing: Make sure you add extra/super/mega dried salt, otherwise...

???  Say what??  ???

wrote on 06.04.04 at 13:25:51:

Yes I did, you didn't read my response! When you change water to it's solid form, it's no longer called water, it's called ice. So you've effectively gotten rid of some of the water! Grr, read my response again!

Packing dry ice around the bottle, doesn't neccessarily freeze the water! Just cools the temperature of it!

amp_man, we're not playing with words here! Just because you can say some of the water in the bottle is now ice, which means there is now less water, doesn't mean the H20 level has differed.
Think amp_man, think!  ;D

I have decided! ::)

I will not post any more questions as they seem to spawn uneccessary debates that go into far too much detail, which borderlines insanity and uneccessity.

I asked for a simple answer, I didn't get it.  I gave it, people were not happy. Instead, we continue to rant about possible answers and I do not see the reason why we waste our time doing this.
I apologise for any inconvenience caused.  :)

wrote on 07.04.04 at 20:45:49:

Packing dry ice around the bottle, doesn't neccessarily freeze the water! Just cools the temperature of it! amp_man, we're not playing with words here! Just because you can say some of the water in the bottle is now ice, which means there is now less water, doesn't mean the H20 level has differed. Think amp_man, think!  ;D

No duh, but the amount of water has changed. Perhaps it is you that needs to think a little harder
:P

Anyways, this was a stupid riddle, with too many potential answers to even bother with trying to argue.

wrote on 07.04.04 at 20:41:59:

You were saying about ranting?!  ::)

Yes, I was saying, indeed. I was explaining myself, not asserting "CASE CLOSED" (please note: UPPERCASE) just because people had different opinions.


Quote:

I never recall mentioning saltwater in my question! ;D Just the old fashioned kind of water, normal water! :P

No, I never recalled your old fashioned water being at 4 Celsius, either.

About extra dried salt (It's not the first time when I give funny answers -- sorry for people that doesn't make through them) Andrei was pretty explicit. Can't you read?

Some guy ever said "Though we are sharing the same environment, each of us live in his own world". *g* I quoted from memory... Might be Schopenhauer (or might be not) but it's in his philosophy... according to which the world is just a ruleset of conventions. So, if several dudes have different opinions than yours, take a brief moment and ask yourself: is it me that's wrong?

Last but not least (not quite to the subject -- but merely schopenhauerian): if thousands of people have different opinion than yours, then you ARE wrong. Why, simply because the world is a ruleset of conventions. And the majority out there establish these conventions. That is, how do you know the blood id red? Because you were taught so. By whom? By people out there (mom, pap, friends etc).

*g* that was out of place!

Falconfly/Patience,

I'm having a problem with one of my posts.  In one of my recent posts I typed the word "saltwater" in bold and it came out "salthingyer"  ???

When I go back into preview it still says "saltwater" in bold tags, but comes out "salthingyer" again.

salt water
saltwater (here I type the words "salt" and "water" without a space).
watersalt

Strange magic!

wrote on 08.04.04 at 07:45:56:

Yes, I was saying, indeed. I was explaining myself, not asserting "CASE CLOSED" (please note: UPPERCASE) just because people had different opinions. No, I never recalled your old fashioned water being at 4 Celsius, either. About extra dried salt (It's not the first time when I give funny answers -- sorry for people that doesn't make through them) Andrei was pretty explicit. Can't you read? Some guy ever said "Though we are sharing the same environment, each of us live in his own world". *g* I quoted from memory... Might be Schopenhauer (or might be not) but it's in his philosophy... according to which the world is just a ruleset of conventions. So, if several dudes have different opinions than yours, take a brief moment and ask yourself: is it me that's wrong? Last but not least (not quite to the subject -- but merely schopenhauerian): if thousands of people have different opinion than yours, then you ARE wrong. Why, simply because the world is a ruleset of conventions. And the majority out there establish these conventions. That is, how do you know the blood id red? Because you were taught so. By whom? By people out there (mom, pap, friends etc). *g* that was out of place!

I do apologise dborca, but you are really ranting now and I'm sorry if I may offend but I get half way through your posts and either fall asleep with boredom, or get lost and confused in what point you are trying to make (your structuring of English sentences are a little hard to connect together).

I am really sorry but can we cut this topic short as I struggle to see the points we make by taking this any further.

We have agreed that there could have been many different answers to the question, depending on how adamant you are to go into further detail and obsessed with finding other solutions than the one I gave.
Yes, there can be many different answers, depending on how far you are willing to take this, even sometimes to disprove all scientifc laws and theories.  ;)

wrote on 08.04.04 at 08:46:51:

I do apologise dborca, but you are really ranting now

You might want to explain...


Quote:

and I'm sorry if I may offend but I get half way through your posts and either fall asleep with boredom,

I see yours are very interesting. Right!
Since this is a personal attack, I cannot help myself... You bloated this forum with... ehm... Patience this, Patience that! Be a real man and take a trip to France!


Quote:

or get lost and confused in what point you are trying to make (your structuring of English sentences are a little hard to connect together).

Well, I am sorry to disappoint you, but I was born and currently live in Romania. You see, not everybody is so lucky to live in US, UK or whatever the heck you think it's the center of the universe. Wow, people do live outside UK! Go figure!
You are dragging the whole idea of free spech into dirt! *g*


Quote:

We have agreed that there could have been many different answers to the question

No, we haven't! CASE CLOSED, eh? This is your opinion about "agreed"? Well, you sound like a moronic professor that think he's right and the poor bastard (student) that tries to contradict him should burn in flames forever.


Quote:

depending on how adamant you are to go into further detail and obsessed with finding other solutions than the one I gave.

I am not obsessed. And it was not only me who tried to give other solutions. It was you to give one and only one solution!

Besides, the schopenhauerian idea was launched by Andrei Boiu (but it's the Nth time when you prove me you are utterly unable to read and interpret a fancy answer).

hurray, i read it all! & I'm just nearly bored now! anyway, i'd say daniel's english is better than most other people's in here, involving me..okay, I'm just an idiot from germany (the country of the great schopenhauer & where your half your cpus are from  ;D ;D ), so who takes a notice of my opinion ???

back to topic: *needs_big_letters*
got another riddle yet? maybe something easier for some in here  ;D

Hmm..

Okay guys, I didn't really get the point of this riddle in the first place, nor read really much of it.

A good technique to start one, however, is to already have the definite, and only answer at hands to end it anytime.
A 'riddle' having more than one possible answer, or presented with insufficient/improperly layed out rules is completely pointless :P
----------------------
I'd say the Forum needs rather a timeout, so for now no more "riddles" please... ::)

Morale :
Use Books or Educational Websites to seek knowledge and use Flashsites or Retail Products to play games, rather than posting "riddles" with uncertain outcome ::)

wrote on 08.04.04 at 11:04:11:

You might want to explain...

I don't want to start ranting myself now, do I?  :P


Quote:

I see yours are very interesting. Right!

Hey, I'm the one keeping it short and sweet!  ;D


Quote:

Since this is a personal attack, I cannot help myself... You bloated this forum with... ehm... Patience this, Patience that! Be a real man and take a trip to France!

I struggle to see the point you are making here (yet again) but if I am right, you may be trying to say I have been "buttering up" Patience.
I think you have made a mistake (once again).
There is nothing wrong with treating someone with a little respect and courtesy (you should try it).  I would like to see how Patience reacts to your remark.
Secondly, if that is the case, I am very happy with my beautiful girlfriend (want a pic? I can guarantee, you would agree!  :P) I have at home.
Maybe I have triggered some pent-up feelings you have for Patience and I have made you envious in some form or another.


Quote:

Well, I am sorry to disappoint you, but I was born and currently live in Romania.

I work for a company in the UK, who own an IT company in Romania called IFSoft. Charming people, some of the most polite people you could ever meet. I think to myself, 'Can all Romanians be as polite and well mannered as this?'...... apparently not!  :P


Quote:

You see, not everybody is so lucky to live in US, UK or whatever the heck you think it's the center of the universe. Wow, people do live outside UK! Go figure! You are dragging the whole idea of free spech into dirt! *g*

I cannot find any evidence or traces of a remark I have made of this nature.  'Nuff said.


Quote:

No, we haven't! CASE CLOSED, eh? This is your opinion about "agreed"? Well, you sound like a moronic professor that think he's right and the poor bastard (student) that tries to contradict him should burn in flames forever.

I tried to settle this debate calmly by agreeing that multiple answers could have been made.
I am a student myself, and far from the "moronic professor" you make me out to be.  
There was no need to hurl your abuse and remarks the way you did.  I apologised for any offence caused to ANYONE if it appeared that way, you didn't, and made your feelings quite clear.


Quote:

I am not obsessed. And it was not only me who tried to give other solutions. It was you to give one and only one solution!

As many others have said, there are many possible answers, which I now agree with.  I was looking for one simple answer that the Think Tank also had, to see if people came up with the same answer.  If I made it sound as though there was no other possible answer in the enitire World, I do apologise, I didn't mean it that way. The question and answer were probably extracted from some science encyclopedia.



Quote:

Besides, the schopenhauerian idea was launched by Andrei Boiu (but it's the Nth time when you prove me you are utterly unable to read and interpret a fancy answer).

I had no trouble with Andrei Boiu's answers, in fact, his answers and statements on the German philosopher and his fundamental reality theories proved to be quite interesting in an educating and philosphical manner.
The only ones I didn't read/understand/got bored of, was your answers, and I have given the reasons why (see my previous post).

Quote:

I cannot find any evidence or traces of a remark I have made of this nature.  'Nuff said.

dude, you directly insulted his english. Of course his english isn't going to be the greatest, believe it or not, there are countries out there that don't speak english.

Anyways, I think this needs a new riddle (contrary to Falconfly's belief) to get people off the subject of the old one  ::).

A man and a woman have been happily married for fifty years and have never had a fight or slept together. Yet they have two kids. How is this possible?

wrote on 08.04.04 at 22:25:59:

A man and a woman have been happily married for fifty years and have never had a fight or slept together. Yet they have two kids. How is this possible?

Not married together?

wrote on 09.04.04 at 05:03:18:

Not married together?

correct  :D

wrote on 08.04.04 at 19:58:41:

Hey, I'm the one keeping it short and sweet!  ;D

Yes, that's about all...


Quote:

I would like to see how Patience reacts to your remark.

Where's my http://my.fit.edu/~mmichael/Smileys/ban.gif

The thing is, I don't care. At least she had the grace to NOT respond to you. Not in public. That was my point.


Quote:

Secondly, if that is the case, I am very happy with my beautiful girlfriend (want a pic? I can guarantee, you would agree!  :P)

Right! And here's my car in his most degraded state, by about the time I dumped it in the junkyard!
http://www.geocities.com/dborca/temp/pp.jpg


Quote:

I work for a company in the UK, who own an IT company in Romania called IFSoft. Charming people, some of the most polite people you could ever meet.

My point was about english.


Quote:

I think to myself, 'Can all Romanians be as polite and well mannered as this?'...... apparently not!  :P

Mane, it was not me starting personal attacks. Anyone else offended?


Quote:

The question and answer were probably extracted from some science encyclopedia.

probably No comment here, Einstein.


Quote:

The only ones I didn't read/understand/got bored of, was your answers, and I have given the reasons why (see my previous post).

*g* you just admitted you haven't read my posts. Yet, you judge them! Anyway, you just made me solve your best riddle! I know why you can't read/understand (or get bored of) my posts.

Bah, I'm going to put an end on this. This space intentionally left blank.

Would you two please calm down? You've turned a silly joke into personal attacks!

http://www.voodoofiles.net/voodooboard/images/smiles/endofdiscussion.gif

ps: nice car m8, i gotta find the junk yards 'round where u live. the trip to romania would be worth it!

wrote on 09.04.04 at 08:07:58:

Yes, that's about all...

And your point to me made here is?  ???


Quote:

Where's my http://my.fit.edu/~mmichael/Smileys/ban.gif The thing is, I don't care. At least she had the grace to NOT respond to you. Not in public. That was my point.

Again, your point here is?


Quote:

Right! And here's my car in his most degraded state, by about the time I dumped it in the junkyard! http://www.geocities.com/dborca/temp/pp.jpg

What points here are you trying to make? This has nothing to do with what we have been talking about! :P


Quote:

My point was about english. Mane, it was not me starting personal attacks. Anyone else offended? probably No comment here, Einstein.

Finally, something I can respond to.  And no it's janskjaer, but thanks for the complement! ;D
Seriously, I disclaimed all offence caused to anyone including you, as that was not my intention, if percieved that way.  I merely stated that I could not understand your structure of English sentences, as I was having a hard time understanding them.  It grew exhaustive trying to break them down and grasp the points you were trying to clarify.


Quote:

*g* you just admitted you haven't read my posts. Yet, you judge them! Anyway, you just made me solve your best riddle! I know why you can't read/understand (or get bored of) my posts.

The best thing about forums, you can go back and try to read the posts again, and try your best in order to please someone else, who may take offence to you not reading them the first time round.
After the post of me saying I didn't read them, I went back to try to see the points you were making.  I was trying to settle this debate with you, not deliberately cause an argument.


Quote:

Bah, I'm going to put an end on this. This space intentionally left blank.

Let's hope you do, then I probably won't have to keep responding to you. :P

amp_man, you have an MSI K7T266 Pro-2 A Mobo?  ;)

Is the board any good?

I was going to get the MSI K7T266 Pro-2 UL.  It has the onboard LAN card with onboard infrared adapter (I think).  Trouble is, I couldn't find anyone who sold it, not even in another country! :'(

Does yours also come with 6 PCI slots? The MSI K7T266 Pro-2 UL has 333Mhz FSB but would I be right in thinking yours has a 266MHz FSB, as I am sure your board was the first model of the K7T266 range?

What is the maximum CPU speed yours will take?  MSI said the K7T266 Pro-2 UL would take an Athlon 2600+, but I had a hard time believing that. :)
I think this would have depended on your mobo perhaps having a KT266 Apollo chispet, which meant it might have only supported a max. of Athlon 1800+.  Again, I don't know for certain, I'm guessing, I could be wrong.

I ended up getting the Chaintech 7VJL Apogee with AGP 2x slot. This also has 6 PCI slots and supports up to a Athlon 2800+ because it's a KT333 chipset (I was advised by FalconFly and others to do this)  :D

wrote on 11.04.04 at 10:49:14:

@ janskjaer Can you begin a new topic because : this is now offtopic and soon this topic will be closed if nobody calms down a little... thks

I suggest we close this topic to cease further heated debates. ;)