The value of smiplicity in designs and engineering
-
I came up with a soltion to an age old problem:
Q: How can you keep pigions from stealing all the seed?
Requirements:
a. The pegions can't feed at the feeder.
b. The pegions can't feed from the ground below the feeder, where feed is placed and
little birds knock the feed to the ground.
c. The little birds can still feed with no problems.This would be a good interviewing question to test ones ability to solve design and engineering problems. I will post the solution in a few hours, or if someone comes up the same or equaly plausable solution. Hint: I came up with the solution because my Father started going nutz and throwing rocks at the pegions. ~TheArch :-D
-
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
i. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. ii. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. iii. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
these laws were in place one time, i recall from a certain movie, and the robots ended up turning against the humans, they would do a good job of getting rid of the birds though ;P
That execrable piece of garbage (the 'movie' you mention) had absolutely nothing to do with the Three Laws[^], since the morons who wrote the screenplay dumped them at their first opportunity. Talk about playing with the net down.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
TWO WORDS SPELL CHECK!
xacc.ide
IronScheme - 1.0 beta 3 - out now!
((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) -
I don't have any kids, and I don't generally watch Disney cartoons.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
That execrable piece of garbage (the 'movie' you mention) had absolutely nothing to do with the Three Laws[^], since the morons who wrote the screenplay dumped them at their first opportunity. Talk about playing with the net down.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
This is kind of off topic, but I agree. I only read some of the robot series by Asimov. I did read the full foundation series, that was really cool. I was quite upset when he died, his was my hero at the time. :((
The unbreakable rule in all of The Good Doctor's robot stories and novels was that the Three Laws could not be broken. Ever. They could only appear to be broken; in fact, that was a central feature of his stories. The puzzle was how to explain the robot's behavior. The wuckfits who wrote the screenplay for the movie simply wrote the Three Laws out of the way when they became inconvenient.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
I came up with a soltion to an age old problem:
Q: How can you keep pigions from stealing all the seed?
Requirements:
a. The pegions can't feed at the feeder.
b. The pegions can't feed from the ground below the feeder, where feed is placed and
little birds knock the feed to the ground.
c. The little birds can still feed with no problems.This would be a good interviewing question to test ones ability to solve design and engineering problems. I will post the solution in a few hours, or if someone comes up the same or equaly plausable solution. Hint: I came up with the solution because my Father started going nutz and throwing rocks at the pegions. ~TheArch :-D
Looks like this thread is pretty much dead. Surprising to see no one likes constraints or likes to refactor. This is my idea of how to not 'Spoil the child, and take away the rod.' The final solution, which I'm testing at this moment it to create a barrier around the perimeter to make the rock pigeons and feral pigeons not want to jump into the circle of stones. Additionally, the size of the pigeon is a key factor. decreasing the mean distance between stones by adding smaller stones makes it much more difficult for the pigeons to feed. Pigeons are opportunistic feeders, they go for the easy meal rather then the hard one. Just by adding stones removed 97% of the problem, as only two pigeons were found feeding. This might be due to my Father shooting them all, but I don't really know. :laugh: My idea of a bad interviewing style: Sith Interviewing Tactics[^] John Simmons / Outlaw Programmer and Nagy Vilmos had the best ideas in my humble opinion. John used classical research and development style to solve the problem. Nagy Vilmos use a more creative thought provoking process and informative logical deduction. Ironically no one found the value in simplicity. The simple solution is often the most elusive. And now a word from our sponsor: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler..." ~Albert Einstein Hey I also learned something new, IE8 has a built in spell checker! Thank you all for you participation! I sent the link to the Myth Busters.
modified on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 2:08 PM
-
Looks like this thread is pretty much dead. Surprising to see no one likes constraints or likes to refactor. This is my idea of how to not 'Spoil the child, and take away the rod.' The final solution, which I'm testing at this moment it to create a barrier around the perimeter to make the rock pigeons and feral pigeons not want to jump into the circle of stones. Additionally, the size of the pigeon is a key factor. decreasing the mean distance between stones by adding smaller stones makes it much more difficult for the pigeons to feed. Pigeons are opportunistic feeders, they go for the easy meal rather then the hard one. Just by adding stones removed 97% of the problem, as only two pigeons were found feeding. This might be due to my Father shooting them all, but I don't really know. :laugh: My idea of a bad interviewing style: Sith Interviewing Tactics[^] John Simmons / Outlaw Programmer and Nagy Vilmos had the best ideas in my humble opinion. John used classical research and development style to solve the problem. Nagy Vilmos use a more creative thought provoking process and informative logical deduction. Ironically no one found the value in simplicity. The simple solution is often the most elusive. And now a word from our sponsor: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler..." ~Albert Einstein Hey I also learned something new, IE8 has a built in spell checker! Thank you all for you participation! I sent the link to the Myth Busters.
modified on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 2:08 PM
TheArchitectmc∞ wrote:
rather then the hard on
Yeah, about that...
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007, 2008
But no longer in 2009... -
Okay since The Outlaw Programmer a.k.a John, has arrived at the fist set of observations to reach the conclusion I am going to impose a constraint. In the intervew you could do the same to see how your candidate works with in constraints. The candidate was given a computer. After searching the internet they found the following: 1. Special bird feeder which has eighter spring loaded perch, or just small enough to only allow the smaller birds to feed from the feeder. 2. The candidate found an obscure article about how to keep pegions away from feeders. Solution make a box with wire mesh under the feeder. Okay now to impose the constraint that will hopfully guide your candidate to the correct observation. Constraint: The owner of the feeder lives in a community that has deed restrictions goverend by a home owners association. All landscaping must be natual, no building, no wire mesh. This constrains solution #2.
Paint the wire mesh green or even give it a camouflaged appearance (shades of brown/green. It won't be visible from the road or even the sidewalk. You could actually use chicken wire mesh. It's thinner and presents a lower visible profile.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
TheArchitectmc∞ wrote:
I am going to impose a constraint
I vote against constraints.
I think you meant "restraints" (aka handcuffs, zip ties, or some hefty rope).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Paint the wire mesh green or even give it a camouflaged appearance (shades of brown/green. It won't be visible from the road or even the sidewalk. You could actually use chicken wire mesh. It's thinner and presents a lower visible profile.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
I think you meant "restraints" (aka handcuffs, zip ties, or some hefty rope).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
TheArchitectmc∞ wrote:
rather then the hard on
Yeah, about that...
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007, 2008
But no longer in 2009... -
I came up with a soltion to an age old problem:
Q: How can you keep pigions from stealing all the seed?
Requirements:
a. The pegions can't feed at the feeder.
b. The pegions can't feed from the ground below the feeder, where feed is placed and
little birds knock the feed to the ground.
c. The little birds can still feed with no problems.This would be a good interviewing question to test ones ability to solve design and engineering problems. I will post the solution in a few hours, or if someone comes up the same or equaly plausable solution. Hint: I came up with the solution because my Father started going nutz and throwing rocks at the pegions. ~TheArch :-D
Get a cat. :doh:
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
I came up with a soltion to an age old problem:
Q: How can you keep pigions from stealing all the seed?
Requirements:
a. The pegions can't feed at the feeder.
b. The pegions can't feed from the ground below the feeder, where feed is placed and
little birds knock the feed to the ground.
c. The little birds can still feed with no problems.This would be a good interviewing question to test ones ability to solve design and engineering problems. I will post the solution in a few hours, or if someone comes up the same or equaly plausable solution. Hint: I came up with the solution because my Father started going nutz and throwing rocks at the pegions. ~TheArch :-D
Some ideas: Post a "no pigeons" sign. Tell the pigeons that the smaller birds have cooties. Tell the pigeons that you are trying to fatten up the smaller birds, so you are using high-fat seed.
-
The unbreakable rule in all of The Good Doctor's robot stories and novels was that the Three Laws could not be broken. Ever. They could only appear to be broken; in fact, that was a central feature of his stories. The puzzle was how to explain the robot's behavior. The wuckfits who wrote the screenplay for the movie simply wrote the Three Laws out of the way when they became inconvenient.
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary Wheeler wrote:
...simply wrote the Three Laws out of the way when they became inconvenient.
There was plenty to dislike about the film, but... In Asimov's own writing, a robot (R Daneel Olivaw if I remember rightly) eventually derived a 0th law (If the robot programmers did their job correctly, the laws would have been 0 based in the first place!) about not allowing any harm to Humanity. As for the other part of the plot - a central "brain", downloading updating detrimental to the performance of individual units... they must have taken that idea from Windows Update! I too loved the I, Robot collection of stories - and cried at the end of Bicentennial Man (book, and the not-all-that-bad-surprisingly-film). Asimov was great at "Hmmm, nice thinking!" stories, so the emotional attachment over a few dozen pages was surprising. Iain.
I have now moved to Sweden for love (awwww). If you're in Scandinavia and want an MVP on the payroll (or happy with a remote worker), or need cotract work done, give me a job! http://cv.imcsoft.co.uk/[^]
-
Gary Wheeler wrote:
...simply wrote the Three Laws out of the way when they became inconvenient.
There was plenty to dislike about the film, but... In Asimov's own writing, a robot (R Daneel Olivaw if I remember rightly) eventually derived a 0th law (If the robot programmers did their job correctly, the laws would have been 0 based in the first place!) about not allowing any harm to Humanity. As for the other part of the plot - a central "brain", downloading updating detrimental to the performance of individual units... they must have taken that idea from Windows Update! I too loved the I, Robot collection of stories - and cried at the end of Bicentennial Man (book, and the not-all-that-bad-surprisingly-film). Asimov was great at "Hmmm, nice thinking!" stories, so the emotional attachment over a few dozen pages was surprising. Iain.
I have now moved to Sweden for love (awwww). If you're in Scandinavia and want an MVP on the payroll (or happy with a remote worker), or need cotract work done, give me a job! http://cv.imcsoft.co.uk/[^]
Iain Clarke wrote:
cried at the end of Bicentennial Man (book, and the not-all-that-bad-surprisingly-film)
Agreed. They did a nice job bringing the story to film, and Robin Williams was a surprisingly good choice for the role of Martin.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Are you sure it's one word? ;)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Gary Wheeler wrote:
...simply wrote the Three Laws out of the way when they became inconvenient.
There was plenty to dislike about the film, but... In Asimov's own writing, a robot (R Daneel Olivaw if I remember rightly) eventually derived a 0th law (If the robot programmers did their job correctly, the laws would have been 0 based in the first place!) about not allowing any harm to Humanity. As for the other part of the plot - a central "brain", downloading updating detrimental to the performance of individual units... they must have taken that idea from Windows Update! I too loved the I, Robot collection of stories - and cried at the end of Bicentennial Man (book, and the not-all-that-bad-surprisingly-film). Asimov was great at "Hmmm, nice thinking!" stories, so the emotional attachment over a few dozen pages was surprising. Iain.
I have now moved to Sweden for love (awwww). If you're in Scandinavia and want an MVP on the payroll (or happy with a remote worker), or need cotract work done, give me a job! http://cv.imcsoft.co.uk/[^]
Iain Clarke wrote:
If the robot programmers did their job correctly, the laws would have been 0 based in the first place!
Unless, of course, they wrote the robot logic in VB.NET which starts counting at 1. That also might explain some of the earlier robot issues detailed in I, Robot....
-
That's a diagnosis, not an excuse.
Don't attribute to stupidity what can be equally well explained by buerocracy.
My latest article | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist
