Invisible wrote:
> Heh. Sort your closet?
> 
> That brings a whole *new* meaning to "heap sort"... ;-)
> 

*groan*!

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Heh. Sort your closet?
>>
>> That brings a whole *new* meaning to "heap sort"... ;-)
>>
> 
> *groan*!

Heeee! I win! ^_^

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:19:31 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Hmm it's like at the supermarket check-out I arrange the items to come  
>> through the till in the same order I want to pack them I don't  
>> understand people who just tip everything out.
>
> Ooo, you don't carefully arrange items according to dimensions,  
> geometry, weight and temperature do you?

Well yeah, otherwise what's the point? These are frozen and stackable;  
this is cold and upright so it can sit next to them; these are light,  
stackable and refrigerated so they can sit on the others. These are thin  
and cool and can slot down the sides, these are non-cool, light, and  
stackable so they sit on the top or in another bag on top of the non-cool  
heavy stackables. These are squishable so go on the top of any bag unless  
they're also heavy in which case they get the side of the bag if possible  
or are paired with the very light. It hardly takes an effort to sort this  
way.

> I mean, I try to avoid putting heavy stuff on top of light stuff. But  
> that's as far as I go.

Yes, but light doesn't equate to non-rigid. Compared to some items bread  
is heavy, but I wouldn't put it at the bottom of the bag unless the total  
weight of the items above it was very light.

> Obligatory XKCD reference:
> http://xkcd.com/309/

Unfortunately I'm in the Two Nerd section even when on my own.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> It hardly takes an effort to sort this way.

...da HELL??

>> I mean, I try to avoid putting heavy stuff on top of light stuff. But 
>> that's as far as I go.
> 
> Yes, but light doesn't equate to non-rigid. Compared to some items bread 
> is heavy, but I wouldn't put it at the bottom of the bag unless the 
> total weight of the items above it was very light.

There are things that are lighter than bread, but I stuggle to think of 
anything that could be damaged by it...

>> Obligatory XKCD reference:
>> http://xkcd.com/309/
> 
> Unfortunately I'm in the Two Nerd section even when on my own.

PWN3D!

BY YOURSELF! :-D




Obligatory XKCD reference:
http://xkcd.com/236/

[Be sure to check the alt-text.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:09:12 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

>> It hardly takes an effort to sort this way.
>
> ...da HELL??

Well it doesn't! It already tends to be arranged structurally in the  
trolley or basket so it's just a case of regrouping it on the conveyor.  
Call it a matter of practice I don't think there's any reason everybody  
shouldn't do this.

>>> I mean, I try to avoid putting heavy stuff on top of light stuff. But  
>>> that's as far as I go.
>>  Yes, but light doesn't equate to non-rigid. Compared to some items  
>> bread is heavy, but I wouldn't put it at the bottom of the bag unless  
>> the total weight of the items above it was very light.
>
> There are things that are lighter than bread, but I stuggle to think of  
> anything that could be damaged by it...

Exactly, which is why you can't split things by the simple heavy/light  
description. You also have to take into account how you'll be carrying  
these things or packing them in the car. Put the bread at the top of a  
carrier and hold the handles and you may be squeezing only the top section  
of the bread so it's best sitting in the middle or upright down the side  
depending on what could be going on top of it.

>>> Obligatory XKCD reference:
>>> http://xkcd.com/309/
>>  Unfortunately I'm in the Two Nerd section even when on my own.
>
> PWN3D!
>
> BY YOURSELF! :-D

Better then being pwned by someone else :-P

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:05:19 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>Oh good! The thought of two is just worrying...

I bet :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> Hmm it's like at the supermarket check-out I arrange the items to come 
> through the till in the same order I want to pack them I don't 

My brother puts all the spoons in one bucket in the dishwasher, all the 
forks in another, etc, so he doesn't have to sort the utensils. (Since I 
can empty the whole dishwasher in the time it takes to re-nuke a cup of 
coffee, I don't really see the savings there.)

On the other hand, I have two colors of socks: light and dark. When they 
were out, I buy 20+ pairs of new socks all the same and use them until 
too many wear out. I haven't sorted socks since high school.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> My brother puts all the spoons in one bucket in the dishwasher, all the 
> forks in another, etc, so he doesn't have to sort the utensils. (Since I 
> can empty the whole dishwasher in the time it takes to re-nuke a cup of 
> coffee, I don't really see the savings there.)

Hmm. Sort the items in insertion. Sort the items on removal. Sounds like 
both algorithms should be of equal time complexity...

> On the other hand, I have two colors of socks: light and dark. When they 
> were out, I buy 20+ pairs of new socks all the same and use them until 
> too many wear out. I haven't sorted socks since high school.

I could go for that.

For some reason, whenever my mum drags me out shopping, we go into about 
15 shops and *finally* find a pair of trousers that look good on me, and 
then we buy *one* pair. WTF? Why don't we just buy, say, 15 identical 
pairs? That way I wouldn't keep running out of trousers to wear!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 04:30:42 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> Hmm it's like at the supermarket check-out I arrange the items to come  
>> through the till in the same order I want to pack them I don't
>
> My brother puts all the spoons in one bucket in the dishwasher, all the  
> forks in another, etc, so he doesn't have to sort the utensils. (Since I  
> can empty the whole dishwasher in the time it takes to re-nuke a cup of  
> coffee, I don't really see the savings there.)

Well my dishwashing activities involves a sink, a bowl, and a pair of  
yellow gloves; but I do arrange the cutlery in the draining board.

> On the other hand, I have two colors of socks: light and dark. When they  
> were out, I buy 20+ pairs of new socks all the same and use them until  
> too many wear out. I haven't sorted socks since high school.

I don't even have the light pairs to worry about I just buy black.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:55:42 -0700, Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:

>I do it by function.

I don't sort my clothes, my wife does.

>My t-shirts go next to my casual pants & jeans.
>My dress shirts go next to my slacks, which go next to my suit, which go 
>next to my tie hanger.
>Etc.

This is her method for my clothes.

>My wife, on the other hand, has no discernible system that I can 
>discover.  She doesn't sort by color, or by function, and apparently not 
>even by ensemble.  Yet she always tells me that I put her clothes in the 
>wrong place when I do laundry, and she never puts my clothes where I 
>think they should go.

Her sort order is likely based upon which ten items she will try on during the two
hour that she is getting ready to go somewhere.  That seems to be the way my wife does
it, best I can tell.

Post a reply to this message