http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/top-oddball-interview-questions-2009

A lot of them seem like genuinely useful questions to ask candidates, one of 
our lecturers at University would regularly ask us questions like #7, 11 or 
19 - it's interesting to see what assumptions and reasoning people make to 
get an estimate.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/top-oddball-interview-questions-2009

  Question 5 doesn't make any sense:

"If two cars are traveling in a two lap race on a track of any length,
one going 60 mph and the other going 30mph, how fast will the slower
car have to go to finish at the same car to finish at the same time?"

  I have hard time parsing that question.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Question 5 doesn't make any sense:
>
> "If two cars are traveling in a two lap race on a track of any length,
> one going 60 mph and the other going 30mph, how fast will the slower
> car have to go to finish at the same car to finish at the same time?"
>
>  I have hard time parsing that question.

Looks to me like a messed up copy/cut&paste that went unnoticed.  Although I 
can't really imagine what the real question wanted without adding a lot more 
words in there.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Question 5 doesn't make any sense.
> 
>   I have hard time parsing that question.

Of course, the stupid thing is that with questions like that, maybe 
that's the challenge. To try to figure out what the actual question is. 
Maybe they made it nonsensicle on purpose to see how people would react. 
Retarded but true...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:

> >   Question 5 doesn't make any sense.
> > 
> >   I have hard time parsing that question.

> Of course, the stupid thing is that with questions like that, maybe 
> that's the challenge. To try to figure out what the actual question is. 
> Maybe they made it nonsensicle on purpose to see how people would react. 
> Retarded but true...

  There was an article somewhere on the subject of why "clever" questions
which expect "clever" answers are actually counterproductive.

  A typical "clever" question is like "how would you weigh a Boeing 747?",
and it's expected that you come up with some convoluted solution to the
problem, while pragmatic answers like "I would consult the specification
manual" or "I would ask an engineer" are discarded.

  However, from a practical point of view those pragmatic answers are
much, much better than any convoluted answer you could come up with.
Why? Because if you come up with a convoluted answer it shows that you
tend to come up with convoluted solutions to simple problems, rather than
doing the practical thing and just consult a manual or other source which
*already* knows the answer, which would be the best thing to do in a
practical situation in the job.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   There was an article somewhere on the subject of why "clever" questions
> which expect "clever" answers are actually counterproductive.
> 
>   A typical "clever" question is like "how would you weigh a Boeing 747?",
> and it's expected that you come up with some convoluted solution to the
> problem, while pragmatic answers like "I would consult the specification
> manual" or "I would ask an engineer" are discarded.

That would, indeed, be a rather stupid question.

>   However, from a practical point of view those pragmatic answers are
> much, much better than any convoluted answer you could come up with.
> Why? Because if you come up with a convoluted answer it shows that you
> tend to come up with convoluted solutions to simple problems, rather than
> doing the practical thing and just consult a manual or other source which
> *already* knows the answer, which would be the best thing to do in a
> practical situation in the job.

Some people evidently feel that doing things the hard way makes them 
look somehow "superior".



Tangentally related: Some scientists used genetic algorithms to try to 
"evolve" a simple electronic oscilator. Like, they hooked a computer up 
to some kind of programmable IC, set it off with randomly initialised 
ICs, and let it mutate and cross the wiring sequences and apply a 
fitness function - you know, the whole genetic algorithms thing.

Eventually they came up with a device which did indeed produce the 
desired sinewave. But the engineers looked at the wiring diagram and it 
looked absolutely nothing like an oscilator. In fact, they couldn't 
figure out how the hell it works. (This is apparently not uncommon with 
genetic algorithms.)

More surprisingly, they tried to do a demo for somebody else and 
discovered that the device no longer worked. The rather puzzled 
experimenters did some experiments, and eventually discovered that the 
device only actually works in the room where they originally evolved it.

At this point, they figured out how the device actually works. It isn't 
an oscilator, it's a radio receiver. And it was receiving interferrence 
from one of the other items of kit in the lab. This simultaneously 
explains why the circuit looks nothing like an oscilator (i.e., IT 
ISN'T), and why it stopped working outside the lab.

It also demonstrates that genetic algorithms will solve a given problem 
by any and all means possible, not necessarily the one you were 
expecting. If you say "generate this signal please", it will generate 
that signal - even if that means receiving it as radio waves!

I'm sure biological evolution is prevaded by similarly counter-intuitive 
adaptations...

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I have hard time parsing that question.

It *is* messed up. The usual question is something like

You have a race two miles long. For the first mile, one car goes 60MPH and 
the other goes 30MPH. How fast does the other car have to go to finish the 
race at the same time as the one going 60MPH?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> At this point, they figured out how the device actually works. It isn't 
> an oscilator, it's a radio receiver. 

Interesting. I read about that, or something similar, where the device had a 
block of four or five transitors wired together but not connected to 
anything else. When they removed the transistors, it stopped working.

I wonder if it's the same device.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> people make to get an estimate.

Of course, the other question is how much time and money you can spend 
getting the estimate, and how accurate the estimate needs to be. Few of 
these questions can be answered without that information.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message news:4b56b729@news.povray.org...
> http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/top-oddball-interview-questions-2009
>
> A lot of them seem like genuinely useful questions to ask candidates, one 
> of our lecturers at University would regularly ask us questions like #7, 
> 11 or 19 - it's interesting to see what assumptions and reasoning people 
> make to get an estimate.

That's really cool, I like it.

I've got a quiz I made that I run candidates (for programming jobs) through 
now, and the first one I put on there is "How does an e-mail system work? 
What happend from the time one person hits 'Send' and the other person sees 
a message in the In-Box?" I get the most amazing amount of hemming and 
hawing over that one.

--
Jack

Post a reply to this message

>> At this point, they figured out how the device actually works. It 
>> isn't an oscilator, it's a radio receiver. 
> 
> Interesting. I read about that, or something similar, where the device 
> had a block of four or five transitors wired together but not connected 
> to anything else. When they removed the transistors, it stopped working.
> 
> I wonder if it's the same device.

That does, in fact, sound vaguely familiar...

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

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:56:25 +0100, scott wrote:

> http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/top-oddball-interview-questions-2009
> 
> A lot of them seem like genuinely useful questions to ask candidates,
> one of our lecturers at University would regularly ask us questions like
> #7, 11 or 19 - it's interesting to see what assumptions and reasoning
> people make to get an estimate.

I agree that some do see useful.  I like #19, probably partly because I 
know how I'd answer:  "Roughly one per space where a light bulb can be 
fitted to the fixture."  (This would allow for some of the fixtures to be 
empty).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:11:28 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>>   I have hard time parsing that question.
> 
> It *is* messed up. The usual question is something like
> 
> You have a race two miles long. For the first mile, one car goes 60MPH
> and the other goes 30MPH. How fast does the other car have to go to
> finish the race at the same time as the one going 60MPH?

Even then it doesn't parse correctly, because they've given you the 
speeds for both cars - so asking how fast the slower car should go 
doesn't make sense, because you've been told how fast it is going.

And I'm not sure that discarding the length of the track allows the 
question to be answered even then.  I assume they're asking about when 
the two cars would cross the finish line at the same time, not when they 
would finish at the same time (since the slower car would clearly be laps 
behind the faster car).  Assuming both are measured at a running start 
(ie, at speed), one car going half the speed of another should cross the 
finish line of a closed track at the same time every 2 laps.  I think 
that's the answer they're going for.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:15:50 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   However, from a practical point of view those pragmatic answers are
> much, much better than any convoluted answer you could come up with.
> Why? Because if you come up with a convoluted answer it shows that you
> tend to come up with convoluted solutions to simple problems, rather
> than doing the practical thing and just consult a manual or other source
> which *already* knows the answer, which would be the best thing to do in
> a practical situation in the job.

Except that often times in the real world the answers aren't so 
straightforward, and some creativity is being figured.  The answer to the 
question isn't important, it's how you got there.  I do agree that on 
their own they're not useful, but in conjunction with other questions 
(both "interesting" questions and "non-interesting" questions) can tell a 
lot about the candidate.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:11:28 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   I have hard time parsing that question.
>> It *is* messed up. The usual question is something like
>>
>> You have a race two miles long. For the first mile, one car goes 60MPH
>> and the other goes 30MPH. How fast does the other car have to go to
>> finish the race at the same time as the one going 60MPH?
> 
> Even then it doesn't parse correctly, because they've given you the 
> speeds for both cars - so asking how fast the slower car should go 
> doesn't make sense, because you've been told how fast it is going.

The race is two miles long. The slow car goes at a speed for one mile. 
What's the speed in the second mile?

(I guess I left out that the fast car keeps going the same speed.)

> And I'm not sure that discarding the length of the track allows the 
> question to be answered even then. 

No, that would eliminate the ability to answer.

Anyway, that's an easy question to answer. A slightly better version is this:

You want to average 60MPH over two minutes. You go 30MPH for the first mile. 
How fast do you have to go to average 60MPH for two minues?

Second alternate question: you want to average 60 MPH. You drive 10 miles at 
30MPH. How many miles do you need to drive at 90MPH to average 60MPH?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/top-oddball-interview-questions-2009
> 
> A lot of them seem like genuinely useful questions to ask candidates, 

Google had a lot of these kinds of questions. Stuff like "how can you 
determine how big a machine's cache is?"

I couldn't figure out if they wanted a program to measure the timing of 
something assuming different cache sizes and look for the step in the 
timing, or "look it up in the x86 instruction set manual".

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/top-oddball-interview-questions-2009


As for delightfully fun puzzles I got at an interview, I got this one:


You have an infinitely long line. Two robots are dropped on parachutes onto 
the line at random, and each drops its parachute (leaving it behind) where 
it lands. Your task is to crash the two robots into each other.

Each robot runs the identical program starting at the beginning, and the 
parachutes are identical, and they are in all ways identical other than 
where they land, which is random.

You have the following instructions available for programming the robots:

Move the robot one step left.

Move the robot one step right.

Move the instruction pointer to a particular instruction (i.e., "goto")

Skip the following instruction if you're standing on a parachute.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:27:06 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:11:28 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>   I have hard time parsing that question.
>>> It *is* messed up. The usual question is something like
>>>
>>> You have a race two miles long. For the first mile, one car goes 60MPH
>>> and the other goes 30MPH. How fast does the other car have to go to
>>> finish the race at the same time as the one going 60MPH?
>> 
>> Even then it doesn't parse correctly, because they've given you the
>> speeds for both cars - so asking how fast the slower car should go
>> doesn't make sense, because you've been told how fast it is going.
> 
> The race is two miles long. The slow car goes at a speed for one mile.
> What's the speed in the second mile?

That makes more sense - but fairly easy to answer algebraically.

> (I guess I left out that the fast car keeps going the same speed.)
> 
>> And I'm not sure that discarding the length of the track allows the
>> question to be answered even then.
> 
> No, that would eliminate the ability to answer.

How so?  If you know the distances and speeds, then the time at which 
both cars reaches the end of the distance becomes a solvable problem.

> Anyway, that's an easy question to answer. A slightly better version is
> this:
> 
> You want to average 60MPH over two minutes. You go 30MPH for the first
> mile. How fast do you have to go to average 60MPH for two minues?
> 
> Second alternate question: you want to average 60 MPH. You drive 10
> miles at 30MPH. How many miles do you need to drive at 90MPH to average
> 60MPH?

I agree, that question formulation would be easier to answer.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:11:28 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> > 
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>>   I have hard time parsing that question.
> >> It *is* messed up. The usual question is something like
> >>
> >> You have a race two miles long. For the first mile, one car goes 60MPH
> >> and the other goes 30MPH. How fast does the other car have to go to
> >> finish the race at the same time as the one going 60MPH?
> > 
> > Even then it doesn't parse correctly, because they've given you the 
> > speeds for both cars - so asking how fast the slower car should go 
> > doesn't make sense, because you've been told how fast it is going.

> The race is two miles long. The slow car goes at a speed for one mile. 
> What's the speed in the second mile?

  I understood it to mean "when the faster car hits the one mile mark,
how fast should the slower car go from that point forward in order to
catch up and get to the finish line at the same time as the faster car"
(which is an interesting question).

  However, if it really meant "when the *slower* car hits the one mile
mark, how fast must it go from that point forward to catch up" it becomes
a trick question (because the faster car has already reached the finish
line by that point).

> Anyway, that's an easy question to answer. A slightly better version is this:

> You want to average 60MPH over two minutes. You go 30MPH for the first mile. 
> How fast do you have to go to average 60MPH for two minues?

> Second alternate question: you want to average 60 MPH. You drive 10 miles at 
> 30MPH. How many miles do you need to drive at 90MPH to average 60MPH?

  I like this version of two things going at different speeds more (I don't
remember the *exact* setup, so I'll just invent the numbers):

  A man and a dog are walking home, which is at a distance of 1 mile.
The man walks at 3 mph. The dog start running at 10 mph towards home.
When it reaches it, it turns around and runs back to the man (keeping
the 10 mph velocity at all times), then turns around and runs to home,
and so on, until the man reaches home. What's the total distance that
the dog ran?

  The problem sounds like you would need to calculate an infinite sum,
but there's actually a much simpler solution.

  (There's also an anecdote of this problem having been given to some
mathematician (don't remember name), and him giving the answer almost
immediately. The person who posed the problem then remarked that "ah,
you figured out pretty fast that you don't need an infinite sum to get
the answer, but that there's a much simpler way", to which the mathematician
responded "what? I *did* use an infinite sum".)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:33:44 -0800, Darren New wrote:

[...]

Now my brain is going to be busy for the next month..... ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Google had a lot of these kinds of questions. Stuff like "how can you 
> determine how big a machine's cache is?"
> 
> I couldn't figure out if they wanted a program to measure the timing of 
> something assuming different cache sizes and look for the step in the 
> timing, or "look it up in the x86 instruction set manual".

I would just write:  "I'd google for it".  a bit of butt-kissing can't 
hurt... :D

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> That makes more sense - but fairly easy to answer algebraically.

That's why I think the original poster meant to ask the later questions, 
which are somewhat trickier.

>>> And I'm not sure that discarding the length of the track allows the
>>> question to be answered even then.
>> No, that would eliminate the ability to answer.
> 
> How so?  If you know the distances and speeds, 

Oh, you're discarding the length of the track, but you still know the distances?

I don't understand, but ... nevermind. :-)

>> You want to average 60MPH over two minutes. You go 30MPH for the first
>> mile. How fast do you have to go to average 60MPH for two minues?
>>
>> Second alternate question: you want to average 60 MPH. You drive 10
>> miles at 30MPH. How many miles do you need to drive at 90MPH to average
>> 60MPH?
> 
> I agree, that question formulation would be easier to answer.

Well, except for the first one. And the second one is unobvious, easy to 
fall into a trap.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Now my brain is going to be busy for the next month..... ;-)

It took me a while, but it became easy once you think about it logically and 
approach the problem systematically.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:00:45 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That makes more sense - but fairly easy to answer algebraically.
> 
> That's why I think the original poster meant to ask the later questions,
> which are somewhat trickier.

Likely, yes.

>>>> And I'm not sure that discarding the length of the track allows the
>>>> question to be answered even then.
>>> No, that would eliminate the ability to answer.
>> 
>> How so?  If you know the distances and speeds,
> 
> Oh, you're discarding the length of the track, but you still know the
> distances?

Wait, what?  No, I was saying that the length of the track is a critical 
missing piece of information in the original question (the question 
specifically states the length doesn't matter - but I believe it does).

> I don't understand, but ... nevermind. :-)

Are we having one of our "we're both saying the same thing" moments 
again? ;-)

>>> You want to average 60MPH over two minutes. You go 30MPH for the first
>>> mile. How fast do you have to go to average 60MPH for two minues?
>>>
>>> Second alternate question: you want to average 60 MPH. You drive 10
>>> miles at 30MPH. How many miles do you need to drive at 90MPH to
>>> average 60MPH?
>> 
>> I agree, that question formulation would be easier to answer.
> 
> Well, except for the first one. And the second one is unobvious, easy to
> fall into a trap.

True.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:00:38 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Darren New wrote:
>> Google had a lot of these kinds of questions. Stuff like "how can you
>> determine how big a machine's cache is?"
>> 
>> I couldn't figure out if they wanted a program to measure the timing of
>> something assuming different cache sizes and look for the step in the
>> timing, or "look it up in the x86 instruction set manual".
> 
> I would just write:  "I'd google for it".  a bit of butt-kissing can't
> hurt... :D

That wouldn't work so well if you were interviewing at Yahoo. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:02:16 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Now my brain is going to be busy for the next month..... ;-)
> 
> It took me a while, but it became easy once you think about it logically
> and approach the problem systematically.

I have a vague idea of how it could be implemented - but like the 
interview I did with a software engineering department years ago (where I 
had a similar 'problem solving' type of question to answer during one of 
the interviews) translating that into usable code is a skill I haven't 
spent a lot of time developing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> You have an infinitely long line. Two robots are dropped on parachutes 
> onto the line at random, and each drops its parachute (leaving it behind) 
> where it lands. Your task is to crash the two robots into each other.
>
> Each robot runs the identical program starting at the beginning, and the 
> parachutes are identical, and they are in all ways identical other than 
> where they land, which is random.
>
> You have the following instructions available for programming the robots:
>
> Move the robot one step left.
>
> Move the robot one step right.
>
> Move the instruction pointer to a particular instruction (i.e., "goto")
>
> Skip the following instruction if you're standing on a parachute.

Wow that's a good one.

Given that both programs are identical, you'll need to use the fact that the 
only difference in the "input" is that one robot has another parachute to 
his left, and one has another parachute to his right.

Something like this should work (I think):







(spolier space)


















.slow_loop
Move left
Move right
Move left
Skip_next_if_parachute
Goto slow_loop

.fast_loop
Move left
Goto fast_loop

Post a reply to this message

> I agree that some do see useful.  I like #19, probably partly because I
> know how I'd answer:  "Roughly one per space where a light bulb can be
> fitted to the fixture."  (This would allow for some of the fixtures to be
> empty).

Sure, but it doesn't account for the stack of spare bulbs in the
janitor's closet.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:55:13 -0800, Tim Attwood wrote:

>> I agree that some do see useful.  I like #19, probably partly because I
>> know how I'd answer:  "Roughly one per space where a light bulb can be
>> fitted to the fixture."  (This would allow for some of the fixtures to
>> be empty).
> 
> Sure, but it doesn't account for the stack of spare bulbs in the
> janitor's closet.

Interesting thought, hadn't thought of that one. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Wow that's a good one.

That was fun, wasn't it? :-) It took me a while to come up with the "only 
way", and then another moment to figure out I needed the initial 
instructions of your first loop (cleverly avoiding spoilers), but once you 
see the answer, it all falls together in an "of course that's how you have 
to do it" sort of way.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:50:38 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> scott wrote:
>> Wow that's a good one.
> 
> That was fun, wasn't it? :-) It took me a while to come up with the
> "only way", and then another moment to figure out I needed the initial
> instructions of your first loop (cleverly avoiding spoilers), but once
> you see the answer, it all falls together in an "of course that's how
> you have to do it" sort of way.

What was along the way I was thinking as well, after initially realising 
I couldn't use variables (my first thought was to do an increasing number 
of L/R moves in each iteration, but without a variable to track how many 
times to loop, that doesn't work so well).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> You have an infinitely long line. Two robots are dropped on parachutes 
> onto the line at random, and each drops its parachute (leaving it 
> behind) where it lands. Your task is to crash the two robots into each 
> other.
> 

I like this puzzle.  It's one of just a few that quickly go from seeming 
impossible to having a nice satisfying solution.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> of L/R moves in each iteration, 

which also fails because the other robot will move in sync. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:53:42 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> of L/R moves in each iteration,
> 
> which also fails because the other robot will move in sync. :-)

I had thought about introducing a "skip next change in direction" if the 
parachute was found - I think that would put it on an alternating course, 
but you're right, otherwise it would be perfectly synchronized. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 01/20/10 09:32, Captain Jack wrote:
> I've got a quiz I made that I run candidates (for programming jobs) through
> now, and the first one I put on there is "How does an e-mail system work?
> What happend from the time one person hits 'Send' and the other person sees
> a message in the In-Box?" I get the most amazing amount of hemming and
> hawing over that one.

	I hope someone mentioned something about a series of tubes...

-- 
I'm addicted to placebos. I'd give them up, but it wouldn't make any 
difference. - Steven Wright

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:21:37 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 01/20/10 09:32, Captain Jack wrote:
>> I've got a quiz I made that I run candidates (for programming jobs)
>> through now, and the first one I put on there is "How does an e-mail
>> system work? What happend from the time one person hits 'Send' and the
>> other person sees a message in the In-Box?" I get the most amazing
>> amount of hemming and hawing over that one.
> 
> 	I hope someone mentioned something about a series of tubes...

LOL

As it happens, there was a problem with my last paycheck's direct deposit 
(we changed providers, and my bank had been bought, so the routing number 
changed, but the old DD provider didn't seem to mind; the new one, 
however, did), so I had to go to the office to pick up an actual paper 
paycheck to take to the bank.

We hit the drive-through to make the deposit.  And we saw one of the 
actual "tubes" used in the early Internet!  No kidding!  It uses a vacuum 
to suck a packet that's got a payload in it into the bank.  I was really 
surprised at how primitive the checksum system was (well, OK, there 
wasn't one, but a voice spoke through a magic box and confirmed delivery 
of the packet).

But man was it slow compared to the modern Internet.  But it was quite 
nostalgic. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> But man was it slow compared to the modern Internet.

Those old-school tubes get more efficient the more data you have to send. Say
you put a harddrive in the tube, the effective bandwidth would be vast compared
to even the fastest LAN... ;-D

>But it was quite
> nostalgic. :-)

Ah, nostalgia. Whatever happened to that?

Post a reply to this message

> Those old-school tubes get more efficient the more data you have to send. 
> Say
> you put a harddrive in the tube, the effective bandwidth would be vast 
> compared
> to even the fastest LAN... ;-D

What about ping time? :-)

Post a reply to this message

>> Those old-school tubes get more efficient the more data you have to 
>> send. Say
>> you put a harddrive in the tube, the effective bandwidth would be vast 
>> compared
>> to even the fastest LAN... ;-D
> 
> What about ping time? :-)

Transfer rate /= latency. ;-)

Somebody suggested that by burning data onto a CD-ROM and getting 
students to cycle to the other side of Cambridge with the CDs in 
backpacks, you could achieve several GB/s mean transfer rate. Of course, 
the packet latency would be about 25 minutes each way…

(Of course, use DVD-ROM - or BluRay - and it improves even more!)

I wonder - what happens if you combine RFC 1149 with USB flash drives?

Required XKCD reference:
http://www.xkcd.com/691/

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> the packet latency would be about 25 minutes each way…

You know you've been blogging too long when you start typing HTML 
character entities in normal text! o_O

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Somebody suggested that by burning data onto a CD-ROM and getting 
> students to cycle to the other side of Cambridge with the CDs in 
> backpacks, you could achieve several GB/s mean transfer rate. Of course, 
> the packet latency would be about 25 minutes each way…

> (Of course, use DVD-ROM - or BluRay - and it improves even more!)

  How do you burn data to a DVD-ROM?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Somebody suggested that by burning data onto a CD-ROM and getting
>> students to cycle to the other side of Cambridge with the CDs in
>> backpacks, you could achieve several GB/s mean transfer rate. Of course,
>> the packet latency would be about 25 minutes each way…
>
>> (Of course, use DVD-ROM - or BluRay - and it improves even more!)
>
>  How do you burn data to a DVD-ROM?

You mean you can burn data to a CD-ROM now? :-O

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> You mean you can burn data to a CD-ROM now? :-O

I mean that once you burn data onto a CD-R, it effectively *becomes* a 
CD-ROM. Sheesh...

Post a reply to this message

>> You mean you can burn data to a CD-ROM now? :-O
>
> I mean that once you burn data onto a CD-R, it effectively *becomes* a 
> CD-ROM. Sheesh...

Oh I knew that, I thought because Warp specifically mentioned DVD-ROM and 
not CD-ROM that he knew of some method to burn to a CD-ROM?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Oh I knew that, I thought because Warp specifically mentioned DVD-ROM 
> and not CD-ROM that he knew of some method to burn to a CD-ROM?

Let me get this straight: You're nit-picking a nit-pick? o_O

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh I knew that, I thought because Warp specifically mentioned DVD-ROM 
>> and not CD-ROM that he knew of some method to burn to a CD-ROM?
> 
> Let me get this straight: You're nit-picking a nit-pick? o_O

It's Friday and I've already played all of this weeks games on NotDoppler.

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> You mean you can burn data to a CD-ROM now? :-O
> >
> > I mean that once you burn data onto a CD-R, it effectively *becomes* a
> > CD-ROM. Sheesh...
>
> Oh I knew that, I thought because Warp specifically mentioned DVD-ROM and
> not CD-ROM that he knew of some method to burn to a CD-ROM?

welcome to povray.off-topic.pedantry

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:

> welcome to povray.off-topic.pedantry

Pedantry? Isn't that a place where you store cheese?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I mean that once you burn data onto a CD-R, it effectively *becomes* a 
> CD-ROM. Sheesh...

  Effectively and effectively... I think that there are CD players which
can't read CD-R's (well, in the past at least, when CD-R was a brand new
thing; nowadays you probably won't find such a thing anymore).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:

> > welcome to povray.off-topic.pedantry

> Pedantry? Isn't that a place where you store cheese?

  No.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message