The following short quiz consists of 4 questions and will tell you whether you are qualified to be a "professional."
ANSWERS are given at the end. The questions are NOT that difficult.
1. How do you put a giraffe into a refrigerator? 2. How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator? 3. The Lion King is hosting an animal conference. All the animals attend except one. Which animal does not attend? 4. There is a river you must cross. But it is inhabited by crocodiles. How do you manage it?
ANSWERS 1 The correct answer is: Open the refrigerator put in the giraffe and close the door. This question tests whether you tend to do simple things in an overly complicated way. 2. Open the refrigerator put in the elephant and close the refrigerator. Wrong Answer! Correct Answer: Open the refrigerator, take out the giraffe, put in the elephant and close the door. This tests your ability to think through previous actions. 3. Correct Answer: The Elephant. The elephant is in the refrigerator. This tests your memory. OK, even if you did not answer the first three questions correctly, you still have one more chance to show your true ability. 4. Correct Answer: You swim across. All the crocodiles are attending the Animal Conference. This tests whether you learn quickly from your mistakes.
According to Anderson Consulting Worldwide, around 90% of the professionals they tested got all questions wrong. But many preschoolers got several correct answers. Anderson Consulting says this conclusively disproves the theory that most professionals have the brains of a four year old.
i cheated and read the answers first... except for the first one, which i answered that you get a giraffe in a fridge by chopping it into little pieces and putting it into freezer bags then put it in the freezer.... so there you go... :?
Quote from Phatgaz[dX: ]ANSWERS 1 The correct answer is: Open the refrigerator put in the giraffe and close the door. This question tests whether you tend to do simple things in an overly complicated way.
But it wouldn't fit, that answer assumes an impossibility to be possible.
Quote: 2. Open the refrigerator put in the elephant and close the refrigerator. Wrong Answer! Correct Answer: Open the refrigerator, take out the giraffe, put in the elephant and close the door. This tests your ability to think through previous actions.
Assuming the impossible to be impossible again, and also working off withheld knowledge (we are not told and there is no evidence to suggest that the answer to one question depends on the previous answer).
Quote: 3. Correct Answer: The Elephant. The elephant is in the refrigerator. This tests your memory. OK, even if you did not answer the first three questions correctly, you still have one more chance to show your true ability.
Withheld knowledge, see above.
Quote: 4. Correct Answer: You swim across. All the crocodiles are attending the Animal Conference. This tests whether you learn quickly from your mistakes.
I would assume you are meant to be given the answer after answering each question, (Q1,A1,Q2,A2,etc) as unless you know you've made a mistake you cannot learn from it.
laterally thinking, you will never get a giraffe into a fridge, lions just eat other animals, and if your gonna cross a river, use the bridge, or a boat, then you dont get wet
The answers are meant to be given one at a time, so you can learn from the mistakes, and it teaches you to thikn outside the square in terms of problem solving.
This is a test that people like Einstein, Edison and Newton pass, not because of book knowledge, but because of thinking processes. They think of how to make things possible. If you want to accept currently held limitations and complexities on the eating habits of lions, and the mean volume of a fridge vs. giraffe, then yes, you will fail this test.
Simply means you don't think the way most inventors and entrepreneurs do....
This is a test that people like Einstein, Edison and Newton pass, not because of book knowledge, but because of thinking processes.
bah these are the people who WROTE the books :? and I think the test is more along the lines of detecting idiots rather than inventors, mainly because they have no real link with the real world. also, einstein was a wanker, just polished up someone elses theory and got all the credit :? edison was some dick who didn't really acheive anything amazing :? Newton i will accept, he did an awful lot, but he also based EVERYTHING he did on EMPIRICAL data, which would imply that he would have measured the volume of the elephant, the girraffe, and the fridge, and then he would have called you a dimwit as well :D
Quote from Harbinger: bah these are the people who WROTE the books Of course. And you don't reckon they had to think about it first?
Quote from Harbinger: and I think the test is more along the lines of detecting idiots rather than inventors, mainly because they have no real link with the real world. The real world is negative, dowtrodden and full of unnecessary limitations. Where would you rather let your mind wander?
Quote from Harbinger: also, einstein was a wanker, just polished up someone elses theory and got all the credit
And those mathematical equations he perfected. Must have had a calculator or something....
Quote from Harbinger: Edison was some dick who didn't really acheive anything amazing Nah. Anyone who invented at least one patent a month for 5 years couldn't have come up with anything worth while. Damn that Electric Light!
Quote from Harbinger: Newton i will accept, he did an awful lot, but he also based EVERYTHING he did on EMPIRICAL data, which would imply that he would have measured the volume of the elephant, the girraffe, and the fridge, and then he would have called you a dimwit as well Probably, but at the time, what was a fridge? A cold storage room of some sort? Could the giraffe be cut into chunks?
Have to agree to disagree Harb, I'm just saying that these great men in history were great because they _didn't_ think like normal people. Funnily enough, as this test implies, we start thinking with dreams of How-To-Do-The-Impossible as children, but lose this ability the more contact we have with the real world around us....
:? thinking differently works fine when you are dealing with simple concepts like making a bit of wire glow. and I disagree on the thinking differently anyway, they simply thought about different things, and in greater depth. These weren't people off in lala land, as per anyone who could answer those questions. They had a firm grip on reality, in fact a firmer grip than everyone else, excepting edison, he just made stuff :?
and they didn't do ANYTHING impossible, they simply classified things around them, and wrote down on paper the laws that govern everything
Quote from Harbinger: thinking differently works fine when you are dealing with simple concepts like making a bit of wire glow. You realise, that this simple concept was when society said: "Man was never meant to fly" "Electricity will leak from the wall outlets" "A man will starve of oxygen if driving over 20 mph" "Running a 4 minute mile will cause your heart to explode" etc
Quote from Harbinger: and I disagree on the thinking differently anyway, they simply thought about different things, and in greater depth. So, instead of thinking differently, they thought differently more?
Quote from Harbinger: These weren't people off in lala land, as per anyone who could answer those questions. I wasn't trying to imply they were off in lala land, my bad. Just that they didn't accept popular limitations on what could and couldn't be done.
Quote from Harbinger: They had a firm grip on reality, in fact a firmer grip than everyone else, So, their grip on reality was different to everyone else's? Glad you said that...
Quote from Harbinger: xcepting edison, he just made stuff OK, I will now ignore Edison for all further arguments!
Quote from Harbinger: and they didn't do ANYTHING impossible, they simply classified things around them, and wrote down on paper the laws that govern everything The vast majority around them declared it impossible. Scientists, Religion, popular culture, the works.
These people showed the world that what was thought to be impossible, wasn't. In thinking differently, they solved the problem instead of accepting given limitations. They thought outside the sqaure of what is commonly done. Is this different enough thinking to prove my point?
Ok this has gone off topic How about not "society" defining the impossibility of it how about it actually BEING impossible as in there IS NO FUCKING WAY YOU'RE GONNA GET A GIRAFFE IN A FRIDGE not even if you mince it not gonna happen so it's got nothing to do with thinking differently, it's got to do with making decisions without the facts
You are foolish in saying "This way of thinking is genius, so if you don't think like that you are stupid". There is no one way to think, there are many and they all have different advantages and disadvantages.
Simplicity is good, but you should also consider where a solution would work. Stick the giraffe in a freezer, just putting it in there is simple, sure, but it obviously won't work as unless the fridge is incredibly big or the giraffe is incredibly small (either of which being a special condition).
If simplicity always worked why would anything be complex?
Quote from Aravi: You are foolish in saying "This way of thinking is genius, so if you don't think like that you are stupid". WTF?! Don't see where I even implied that anywhere!
Quote from Aravi: If simplicity always worked why would anything be complex? *ahem* again..WTF?! I am not, and have not said anything about simple vs complex models (which would be a decidedly long rant on my part, but I digress...)
What I _have_ been trying to say, is that the most notable achievements in human history can generally be traced to individuals who thought outside accepted limitations. If this is so hard for people to accept, then you're proving my point (QED).
I was arguing against earlier posts, did you not consider that possibility?
It is worth considering what may not seem possible in the event that it is.
And their are two kinds of developments as far as technology is concerned, revolutionary and evolutionary. Revolutionary developments are sudden and cause big changes but we owe most of the development to the evolutionary processes that slowly improve on a design (eg. CPU clock increaseing).
Quote from Aravi: I was arguing against earlier posts, did you not consider that possibility? I did actually, and still can't find it. Quote it for me next post...
Quote from Aravi: It is worth considering what may not seem possible in the event that it is. I concur
Quote from Aravi: Open your mind but listen to reason. A sound principle.
As for the Evolutionary vs Revolutionary argument, I'll save that rant for something else...but just as a teaser, who had more impact: The dude who got the clock speed from 133 to 300, or the guy who invented the silicon chip?
I've yet to have anyone debunk what I've said (although Harb's been the most persuasive). Curious to hear arguments fom the other side of the fence here...
Quote: This is a test that people like Einstein, Edison and Newton pass
Its a joke ppl ur not supposed to get it right :) ppl who pass this test either know its a joke, or they are incredibly stupid and live off in their own little world
Quote from Charybdis: I did actually, and still can't find it. Quote it for me next post...
It got the impression that "if you can't solve these you're stupid" that seemed to be implied early into this debate. This may be a mis-interpretation on my part.
Quote: As for the Evolutionary vs Revolutionary argument, I'll save that rant for something else...but just as a teaser, who had more impact: The dude who got the clock speed from 133 to 300, or the guy who invented the silicon chip?
It's the work of both that got us here, Evolutionary development has taken the silicon chip from KHz to GHz, a significant step from what it was.
There is a group therapy test they give you in school where your told to read the questions and then start answering them. Most people start answering as they go, which makes them look real silly. The last bit on the page tells you that now you've read the whole thing, to sit with your arms folded and watch the fun.
by the same token, throwing four questions up with *no* explanation of what you want people to do is *not* an indication of intelligence. An intelligent person (such as Einstein) wouldn't have wasted his time on the original questions asked.
Quote from Charybdis: As for the Evolutionary vs Revolutionary argument, I'll save that rant for something else...but just as a teaser, who had more impact: The dude who got the clock speed from 133 to 300, or the guy who invented the silicon chip?
The evolutionary vs revolutionary is a very mainstream concept, well done to aravi for knowing it :) (though a bit off topic)
My rebuk: ur acrediting everything that every been created with the silicon chip to its inventor which is wrong
Quote from Matt: acrediting everything that every been created with the silicon chip to its inventor which is wrong Agreed, but without the inventor's Revolution, what Evolution would there have been?
Did I hear you call Einstein a rip-off of others ideas???
Mate, most people thought he was MAD with his ideas. Plus the Theory of Relativity when he first created it had 17 UNKNOWN constants that he and science didnt have names or a CLUE what they were but he knew they had to be there cause it all 'fitted'.
Buddy forget what they have taught you in HS and Uni Physics. Go read some independant books about Einstein and thee truth shall be revealed... :)
Sure he was a philandering dirty old man with a tenious grip on reality who often used this image for his own ends.
But the stuff he came up with from NO-WHERE is what makes him a genius :)
If you've got opinions to the contrary and some examples to back them up happy to argue wit ya :)
And now that we're COMPLETELY off topic, I would like to re-assume my role as Devil's advocate, and point out that Children think outside the Square naturally. The Great Revolutionaries (be they in Physics, Military, Conceptual or Inventions) Think Outside the Square. The common man doesn't, and accepts the assumed limitations on the world around them.
Did I hear you call Einstein a rip-off of others ideas???
Mate, most people thought he was MAD with his ideas. Plus the Theory of Relativity
He did not rip them off, he is just accredited them though they wernt his original thoughts (he made them popular as he was famous for his special theory of relativity which not many ppl have a problem with its his general theory of relativity which upsets pp including me) .
One of his most famous formulas where dementions (like lenght and time) change relative to its speed, most important was mass to prove that the speed of light is impossible to reach.
mass at speed = mass at speed 0 /(square root of (1 - (speed squared)/(speed of light squared)))
as speed ==> speed of light mass at speed ==> infinity = imposible
Problems start when u try to define speed 0, relative to what?? the answer is an inertial frame of reference (a non accellerating system). For this the earth was picked, but the only inertial frame of reference is a free falling object in space which can travel at differnt speeds so there is no possible refeance point.
So anyway the whole theory and formulae were made up to explain some of the properties of light and most notibly meuons (i think) cause they decay really fast and they come from far away so the only way it could have got here is if it was traveling fast enought to slow time down enough to get here from far away stars.
ne way to the point, this is einsteins formulae applied to maxwells theory (forgot his last name)
unfortuantly for them both the formulae and theory is wrong (i know the goes against what were taught and what most scientist belive), fortuantly for me, there is proof with the ability to controll the speed of light and most importantly speed it up.
"By shining light through frozen murcury cystals a speed above the speed of light is achived" - 2001 some scientis in switzerland
oh and how bout the comological constant, a number made up by einstein to ensure that the universe neither expands or contracts
so yeah, einstein is accredited with more then he has done :)
to charybdis, someone else would have invented it, also its invention required the ability to purify silicon :) so maybey the purificaiton of silicon was the revolutionay advancement??? and the transistor was only evolutionary? the only thing seperating them would be the amount of change that they directly created :) its philosophy, no right answeres :)
Quote from Matt: to charybdis, someone else would have invented it, also its invention required the ability to purify silicon :) so maybey the purificaiton of silicon was the revolutionay advancement??? and the transistor was only evolutionary? the only thing seperating them would be the amount of change that they directly created :) its philosophy, no right answeres :)
'Cept that semi-conductors exist solely because of a lack of purity in the silicone :P
you have to dope the silicone to change its conductive properties - pure silicone has no conductive properties whatsoever :P
pure silicone is easy - its a metallic crystal and as such can be easily refined - the true technological leap was when they learned to play with the conductive properties of silicone by mixing it with certain percentages of other materials. This is what led to the creation of the semi-conductor and a huge boost in the advancement of technology.
Ok here we go, take a break for a few hours and this is what u get :?
creation of the diode ----> accidental bunch of dudes sitting about probing a big peice of silicon doped with all types of stuff, noticed something odd
quantum theory: wrong, its known to be incorrect, but it fits for a lot of stuff, i.e semiconductors, originally formulated by max planck but commonly credited to einstein.
Coco: I beleive nothing written down that isnt in mathematical equations :?, especially biographies written 50 years after that person has died :?
Frozen mercury BS story: wrong way around, they SLOWED light to a STOP, not sped it up, was published in new scientist earlier this year.
lalalala la lalal ala l al ala la la laaa
This is not about thinking outside the square, its about thinking inside a very very small one. It deals with ignorance of basic facts, has nothing to do with the way you think, if this test has ever been used to suggest any serious result then i would suggest that the testers were complete morons.
OMFG MEPH DELETE THAT POST pure silicone is a PRICK to refine you have to keep it at like a bazillion degrees until the crystal forms in a vacuum then you have to keep it in a room with less than like 5 dust particles per cubed metre metallic????? very definition of silicon is non-metal :? covalent bonds and whatnot
Quote from Harbinger: Frozen mercury BS story: wrong way around, they SLOWED light to a STOP, not sped it up, was published in new scientist earlier this year.
id have to read that :), infact id have to read up on a bit to have any serious kind of argument.
But I fairly clearly remember the fact that it was speeding up light using murcury cystals. Something to do with light clusters??? ne way id have to look it up, didnt make much of a stir cause they couldnt prove their result. If ne one has a copy of yr 12 physics excel study guid, its on page 141 i havent looked at it for over a year :) (yes i know my memorys screwed :))
The most reasent and more well known events have been the slowing down of light, cause its been proven where as the above hasnt, this involves a gas chamber with something in it (its probably pure a gas and rare :)) but the atoms respond to certain electromagnetic radiation frequencies to change properties allowing the slowing down the speed of light to walking speed :)
3. The Lion King is hosting an animal conference. All the animals attend except one. Which animal does not attend? Bigfoot, it's a long walk/swim from North America to Africa :idea:
Quote from Harbinger: OMFG MEPH DELETE THAT POST pure silicone is a PRICK to refine you have to keep it at like a bazillion degrees until the crystal forms in a vacuum then you have to keep it in a room with less than like 5 dust particles per cubed metre metallic????? very definition of silicon is non-metal :? covalent bonds and whatnot
I was under the impression that its position on the periodic table of the elements classed it as a metal - mind you, I'm stretching back almost 10 years for this knowledge - knowledge of the creation of semiconductors is much more recent though :P the accidental creation of the diode was what led to the evolutionary genesis of modern day semiconductors and digital electronics in general.
Quote: Isolation Here is a brief summary of the isolation of silicon. There is normally no need to make silicon in the laboratory as it is readily available commercially. Silicon is readily available through the treatment of silica, SiO2, with pure graphite (as coke) in an electric furnace.
SiO2 + 2C Si + 2CO
Under these conditions, silicon carbide, SiC, can form. However, provided the amount of SiO2 is kept high, silicon carbide may be eliminated.
2SiC + SiO2 3Si + 2CO
Very pure silicon can be made by the reaction of SiCl4 with hydrogen, followed by zone refining of the resultant silicon.
Let me get this straight, I posted a silly quiz from a porn site and now (3 pages on) we're talking about chemistry, physics and social psychy. Geez where did it all go wrong?
Quote from Matt: its missing "==>" cause they were immages and didnt copy over
Yeah I made that assumption aswell :) After thinking about it for a while.... it might actually be right.... seems to have followed most of the laws n other chemistry related jazz :)
actually, the quoted part was text - methinks it was simplified down alot
also Vinc, they said it could be refined further, though your still overlooking that they *want* impurities in the silicone to make it conductive :P they just want specific impurities.
fyi use of the word "very" to qualify a word like "pure" is sorta pointless - its either pure or its not :P
Quote from Mephiston: Very pure silicon can be made ... just continuing on things... ur just not getting it r u :), it has to be 99.999999.... % pure
as far as wanting impurities were talking dopeing right? stuff added later, u dont want the whole damn thing doped otherwise u end up with a conductor and not a circut. So its doped using similar tec to an electron microscope and at around 1 000 000 silicon atoms to 1 added atom
(i may be wrong here, as i hvt spent the time checking)
Quote from Milf Hunter[dX: ]Let me get this straight, I posted a silly quiz from a porn site and now (3 pages on) we're talking about chemistry, physics and social psychy. Geez where did it all go wrong? You didn't post any links to good porn sites :roll:
we're talking semiconductors here, not entire micro processors :P thats a *completely* diferent kettle of fish. Micronizing the whole semiconductor process involves alot more than I can be bothered looking up to refresh my memory.
they use diferent percentages of impurities of diferent types to make the various parts of a semi conductor - the exact specifics escape me, and it depends on the type, and the quality of a semi conductor.
They may require pure Si for a complete processor, or parts thereof, but its overkill for something as simple as a diode.
trust me when I say that pure silicone isn't *that* hard to come by - if it was, they'd have used germanium instead, since it has much better properties for constructing semi-conductors. Its just a bitch to come by :P
Unintentional: 1 part per 10^9 Intentional: 1 part per 10^8 to 1 part per 10^3 and the stuff they use in advanced microprocessors now is well past silicon, it lets too much current through :?
Silicon is used because it is PLENTIFUL, but it is also VERY EXPENSIVE to refine, requires massive amounts of heating, and expensive positive pressure production facilities.
you can actually use diamond as a semiconductor as well i think, i was told once that such devices are EMP resistant :P
im fairly sure that silicon in diodes is still very expensive, probly less pure but still expensive, is very convenient that only tiny little peices of silicon are used, you dont see it because diodes etc all have little plasticky insulation around it, for obvious reasons :?
i agree with harb, gaz is an idiot, there is no way that anyof that would happen, both a girafe and hefalump are to big to fit in a fridge. why would a lin king call a conference? to discuss their rental agreement???????? and take to fucken boat or bridge, dont swim
Quote from Mudman: i agree with harb, gaz is an idiot, there is no way that anyof that would happen, both a girafe and hefalump are to big to fit in a fridge.
Quote from Aravis: Get a bigger fridge. Simple really.
You know, I remember reading that somewhere...hang on... Eureka, now I remember... Quote from Charybdis: It's only impossible if you use the standard definition of a fridge....
it's not lateral thinking god damnit it's answering without data it's thinking STUPID this is not the mark of a genius it is the mark of an idiot the mark of someone who does not pay attention who does not think at ALL
Harb: You've missed the point Aravi: You're with Harb, although you've got the right concept in earlier posts...
The Opening Test in this thread, IGNORES DETAILS. It deals with GOAL ORIENTED CONCEPTS.
Followers say it's impossible, because no-one shows them how, and they can't deal with anything outside normal everyday parameters (eg standard Fridge)
Visionaries say, "Here's the theory, now I'm going to find a way to make it work", and then do so.
Please, go ahead and prove me right by saying I'm wrong.... I don't mind.
Quote from Some Book ages ago:
"Some people simply don't know what they don't know...it's not really their fault, they just haven't thought about it"
Its also an indication of wether or not someone is capable of believing in a concept without having physical proof :P
and Charybdis - I'm only right cause I'm agreeing with you :P I *could* disagree if you wanted - I still remember some of our more notable arguments on perspective :P
Quote from Charizard: Visionaries say, "Here's the theory, now I'm going to find a way to make it work", and then do so.
great, except that this test deals with people who have no theory, and don't bother finding a way to make it work the correct answer is apprently to "just put it in the fridge" and although we are supposed to ignore facts about realistic fridge sizes and tropical climate animals living in subzero temperatures, we still "know" that a fridge has a door. this answer has no "theory" and no "making it work" its just simplifying the problem down to the point where it wont work
Quote from Chargrill: Followers say it's impossible, because no-one shows them how, and they can't deal with anything outside normal everyday parameters (eg standard Fridge)
there is a difference between putting the butter in the fridge, and putting a giraffe in the fride, this test does NOT differentiate between followers and visionaries, you think it differentiates between people who dont know what can be done and what cant be, i have ignored this mainly because this is not really what the test is doing, its got nothing to do with impossibility and impossibility, its completely possible to get a giraffe into a fridge, assuming you have a large fridge, and the giraffe is in niceley chopped peices. Because theres no fricken way that giraffe is going to cooperate.
People who can answer this test wont really achieve anything because they assume the simplest answer, neglecting any real process of actions, or really considering the problem at all. Try blanking your mind and answering how to make a television. the answer is "get parts, put them together" fine, but this results in is a bunch of resitors and capacitors stuck to a cathode ray tube, probably with CLAG glue thats assuming that you know a little bit about tvs, kinda like you know a "little bit" about fridges, and animals or how about we explain how to build the sydney harbour bridge "make bridge, put it over the water" doing very well on ignoring reality here, weight?? torsion?? mass? shear? tension?? why bother, you only really need to define the basic actions :?
in short, it differentiates between simpletons and everyone else
Quote from Harbinger: No Try blanking your mind and answering how to make a television. the answer is "get parts, put them together" fine, but this results in is a bunch of resitors and capacitors stuck to a cathode ray tube, probably with CLAG glue thats assuming that you know a little bit about tvs, kinda like you know a "little bit" about fridges, and animals or how about we explain how to build the sydney harbour bridge "make bridge, put it over the water" doing very well on ignoring reality here, weight?? torsion?? mass? shear? tension?? why bother, you only really need to define the basic actions :?
in short, it differentiates between simpletons and everyone else
I disagree Harb - Televisions and Bridges are incredibly complex objects and constructing them requires complex information.
Try asking someone to disassemble a TV and you'd be closer - bash it with a hammer, take it apart peice by peice - your looking at the issue from the complete wrong angle.
No Im looking from my angle, that is always the right one :P
I do beleive that the original argument over this subject was that this test differentiated between "normal" people, and some magical people who see everything as its root problem, which lets them achieve miraculous things like splitting the atom, defining all the basic empirical rules of physics, and shoot laser beams out of their eyeballs and arseholes.
Now apparently it does this by defining a simple problem, and people who answer it in the SIMPLEST way, are correct, and these people are obviously SUPERHUMANS, better than everyone else, because they are the fabled PERCEPTIONISTS who know all, and are the greatest race upon the earth.
So now that we have figured out that such people exist, we give them a more complex problem, because what other purpose do they have than to overcome all the problems we have, like having no tv, or having to swim across that pesky crocodile infested harbour. But no, apparently all they can do is move things in and out of a fridge, why?? because they arn't really perceptionists, they are actually GIBBERING IDIOTS, those arnt laserbeams, thats drool, and yes I do beleive that smell is the crap that they did in their adult nappy.
Quote from Harbinger: No Im looking from my angle, that is always the right one :P
I do beleive that the original argument over this subject was that this test differentiated between "normal" people, and some magical people who see everything as its root problem, which lets them achieve miraculous things like splitting the atom, defining all the basic empirical rules of physics, and shoot laser beams out of their eyeballs and arseholes.
no it wasn't nerf :P
the argument was: Quote: The Opening Test in this thread, IGNORES DETAILS. It deals with GOAL ORIENTED CONCEPTS.
It was then stated that there were two basic ways to answer the problem
way 1:Quote: Its Impossible
way 2:Quote: you do it
when it all comes down to it, very little is in fact impossible - many people (labelled as "followers" by Charybdis) are simply too damn lazy to figure out what is needed to accomplish the task and so call it impossible.
Answer me this Harb - can you honestly say that it is not possible to get a Giraffe into a fridge? under *ANY* circumstances?
Quote from Charcoal: is is a test that people like Einstein, Edison and Newton pass, not because of book knowledge, but because of thinking processes. They think of how to make things possible. If you want to accept currently held limitations and complexities on the eating habits of lions, and the mean volume of a fridge vs. giraffe, then yes, you will fail this test.
Simply means you don't think the way most inventors and entrepreneurs do....
Quote from Harbinger: its got nothing to do with impossibility and impossibility, its completely possible to get a giraffe into a fridge, assuming you have a large fridge, and the giraffe is in niceley chopped peices.
Now apparently it does this by defining a simple problem, and people who answer it in the SIMPLEST way, are correct, and these people are obviously SUPERHUMANS, better than everyone else, because they are the fabled PERCEPTIONISTS who know all, and are the greatest race upon the earth.
So now that we have figured out that such people exist, we give them a more complex problem, because what other purpose do they have than to overcome all the problems we have, like having no tv, or having to swim across that pesky crocodile infested harbour. But no, apparently all they can do is move things in and out of a fridge, why?? because they arn't really perceptionists, they are actually GIBBERING IDIOTS, those arnt laserbeams, thats drool, and yes I do beleive that smell is the crap that they did in their adult nappy.
Quote from Harbinger:
its got nothing to do with impossibility and impossibility, its completely possible to get a giraffe into a fridge, assuming you have a large fridge, and the giraffe is in niceley chopped peices.
So then by your own words, your a gibbering idiot who just crapped his daks? :P
who's owned now looser? :P
its a puzzle of logic, one you obviously passed, so why argue?
We should instead be arguing about what to do to Phatgaz for posting useless crap like this in the general forum :P
the answer to the question was, open the door, put in the giraffe absolutely no reference to processing of the giraffe, or the fact that giant refridgerators aren't called fridges, tend to be called coolrooms, or coolers
real reason im arguing is because char suggested that newton was one of these morons that can answer that test
Quote from Harbinger: You're equation is wrong meph
the answer to the question was, open the door, put in the giraffe absolutely no reference to processing of the giraffe, or the fact that giant refridgerators aren't called fridges, tend to be called coolrooms, or coolers
real reason im arguing is because char suggested that newton was one of these morons that can answer that test
Actually, you could just as easily build a giraffe sized fridge and fill it with giraffe snacks - you don't necessarily have to process him at all :P
if you really want to know if Newton or Einstein were capable of answering it, go ask them :P its about the only way this argument will be resolved :P
funny that the old bastards are dead and we will never know for sure now isn't it :P
I'm sure your time can be better spent on something that isn't as pointless as arguing over the personality/intellect of dead people don't you? :P
But Meph, you do realise the only way I recognise your brother is because of the similarities....
The concept of all this relating to Sydney Harbour etc made me laugh I must say, and the Char<random> quotes had me rolling on the floor!
As for this debate: <bullhorn engaged> If you wish to argue technicalities, equations and specifics, I say again, you're missing the point, and proving mine. QED <bullhorn disengaged>
just thought id mention since there werent fridges around period in the day of newton hed probably answer the question by asking what the hell a fridge was.