|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
sumnihil
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2005 : 21:13:55 [Permalink]
|
| dave w.-the only problem i have with the analogy you used is the purpose of the exercise. the purpose of this puzzle is to show how different people perceive and attempt to solve a given problem. and, perhaps, to keep people from looking for zebras when they should be seeking a horse. there were several red herrings thrown up on the page and in the problem to keep people from finding the right track. and looking at the source code did not give me the magical "the sum will be _____ ", i still had to perform the same calculations everyone else did. we were all watching a magic trick, and i chose to look behind the curtain, rather than watch the trick done repeatedly until i caught the slight of hand. |
all great truths began as blasphemies.
--g.b. shaw
yes, i am aware that i do not use capital letters. it is discrimination, and discrimination is wrong. period. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 21:24:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by sumnihil
now, i would compare my situation to solving a crossword puzzle. if one were to look in the back page of the crossword section and the answer for that puzzle was printed there (as is lamentably the case with the orlando sentinel), taking answers from that for the puzzle would definitely be cheating. if, however, one were to solve a cryptogram that held within its cipher the answers for the crossword, then that is just using a different set of tools to solve the same problem.
Ok, so what cryptogram did you decypher? Earlier you said "i looked at the source code...all right there in black and white, if one is able to read javascript." Doesn't sound like you had to do too much "decyphering." It sounds more like just reading the answer. Does it matter that the answer is in a language not everyone can read?
Sorry, bud. In my opinion you cheated. Of course, my opinion means very little.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/21/2005 21:26:26 |
|
|
|
sumnihil
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 21:43:48 [Permalink]
|
reading through the for, if/else, and function call loops of javascript is roughly equal in difficulty (for me anyway, i know people who can glance at them and instantly know their meaning) to a standard daily newspaper cryptogram.
and when i said that it was all there in black and white, i meant that there was no security preventing one from reading the source, and the javascript button called a function rather than sending information to a server based form, which would prevent one from seeing the actions taken with the information passed. |
all great truths began as blasphemies.
--g.b. shaw
yes, i am aware that i do not use capital letters. it is discrimination, and discrimination is wrong. period. |
| Edited by - sumnihil on 02/21/2005 21:44:45 |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 23:10:33 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, sumnihil. You still cheated. The problem is pretty clear about what tools you are allowed to solve the puzzle. The fact that there is a software implementation whose source you can read, just puts the ethics of your actions into question. But this is just a trivial puzzle, so who cares?
I just read the JavaScript, its a little obvious in this case don't you think? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2005 : 01:46:48 [Permalink]
|
I "cheated" by examining the source code. I felt I didn't have the time nor the patience to sit a few hours trying to figure it out. Pen and paper would have helped me solving it faster, but somehow that feels like cheating too.
I don't program java-script, or VB-script. Back in the good old days, in the eighties, I was a BASIC wizard, and I have spent a few hours learning Pascal and C. So I decided to make this an exercise in analysing unfamilliar programming codes. I've done that before: A coworker slapped together a VB-script for my homepage that I later modified to suit my purpose, including adding HTML-features that I researched as the need turned up.
When I finally found the important lines I slapped my forhead. The sollution is simple yet hard to find: it requires either intuition or a massive amout of data crunching to figure out.
Oh, and I loved the Bill Gates story. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
sumnihil
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2005 : 07:33:30 [Permalink]
|
wooly as i said, it was as difficult as a newspaper cryptogram for me to read through the lines of code. i am not a programmer by trade, and like dr. mabuse, i am not wholly familiar with javascript. so (again, for me) it was a bit of a challenge, but a challenge i could bear. unlike pattern recognition. it is one of my greatest weaknesses academically, always has been, has consistently shown up as the weakest link on any standardized test i've ever taken.
had i attempted to do the puzzle "straight up", i would most likely never have come up with a solution.
so, is it fair that someone with a different skill set (i.e., intuitive pattern recognition) would be able to solve the puzzle with a fair amount of ease, whereas a person like me who did not have that skill should remain ignorant?
and the reason i'm making a deal of it isn't the fact that i solved the puzzle this way. i'm trying to get information on how others view the ethics of this situation. for my part, i see nothing wrong with solving the puzzle by breaking it down into its component parts even if this isn't the "correct" method for getting a solution. the bottom line, as i see it, is that there was a problem confronting me, and i solved it to the best of my abilities. if, in the course of events, something similar to this pops up in the real world, where a problem is expected to be solved one way, and i choose another, less intuitive, way of solving it, i'd like to guage some reactions, see how people would be likely to respond. in this exercise, it doesn't really matter. there is no real prize, and no real competition: it was an academic exercise. but if getting a job or a certain client depended on the solution to this problem? i'm just wondering how other people would view the decision i made in that light. as i've caught a minor shitstorm for the decision i've made here, i'm just curious what the reaction would be if i used the same logic in a situation where a long term contract was at stake. |
all great truths began as blasphemies.
--g.b. shaw
yes, i am aware that i do not use capital letters. it is discrimination, and discrimination is wrong. period. |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2005 : 07:52:24 [Permalink]
|
At one point I was so frustrated if I could have read the JavaScript I probably would have. In that instance I would not claim to have solved the puzzle, but rather merely quenched my need to know the solution.
As someone who finds code challenging, I can see your point that you found a different way of solving the puzzle, sumnihil, but I'm not quite buying it.
Then again, I'm probably just bitter about all the hours I wasted yesterday. 
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
sumnihil
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2005 : 08:11:19 [Permalink]
|
had i looked at the source code out of frustration, i would not have made a claim to having solved the puzzle. but looking at the source code was the first thing i thought of, the first thing i tried (i was being honest about it taking 17 rolls for me to get a string of 10 correct answers, but that was just for accuracy's sake. i accidentally rolled 4 or 5 times without entering a guess for the score.)
looking at the code was my method for solving, not a product of my inability to solve. that's why i'm wondering about its ethics.
though, given the puzzle and the solution, had i not looked at the code, i would still be hitting the 'roll again' button and screaming at the monitor. |
all great truths began as blasphemies.
--g.b. shaw
yes, i am aware that i do not use capital letters. it is discrimination, and discrimination is wrong. period. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2005 : 08:28:41 [Permalink]
|
"Ethics" is too big a word for this. What would you feel comfortable doing next time? You already know that answer. No one else cares.
And it is not condescending to say that you can read code and I can't. There are things that I can do that you can't. Well, that probably isn't true, but let's assume that it's possible. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2005 : 08:30:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by sumnihil
so, is it fair that someone with a different skill set (i.e., intuitive pattern recognition) would be able to solve the puzzle with a fair amount of ease, whereas a person like me who did not have that skill should remain ignorant?
Is it fair that I'll never be a professional quarterback? Absolutely.
The puzzle is fair in that each person, regardless of ability, is given the same clues. Just like Olympic sprinters don't start farther back if their averages times are faster than others, the puzzle doesn't "help" people who don't intuitively grasp it in five minutes, or even five hours or five days.
The sense of "fairness" you've implied above actually offers people a crippling sense of entitlement to things for which they are unwilling (or unable) to put forth the effort. It isn't good. It's much better if people face up to the fact that they're differently equipped, and make the best of what they've got, than to insist that because they're less "intuitive" or "athletic" or whatever that the games and puzzles and other hurdles facing them aren't "fair."
(I know someone reading this is thinking of the same Kurt Vonnegut story I'm thinking of, but can't remember the name of. Help me out. )quote:
but if getting a job or a certain client depended on the solution to this problem? i'm just wondering how other people would view the decision i made in that light. as i've caught a minor shitstorm for the decision i've made here, i'm just curious what the reaction would be if i used the same logic in a situation where a long term contract was at stake.
Business ethics are, of course, different from "puzzle ethics," and what's "fair" is imposed by law and regulation. Anything not expressly forbidden by the law is "fair" in business dealings, which are not analogous to the puzzle.
On another note, you said you still don't have a clue as to why the name of the game is relevant. Do you think you've really solved the puzzle? Are you assuming that that particular clue is a red herring? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2005 : 09:30:10 [Permalink]
|
| It wasn't until after knowing the algoritm, and after really examining the clues on the page that I realized the connection between the algoritm and the clue. But it was the algoritm that gave me the clue, not the other way around. Now, what does that tell you about my mind? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
sumnihil
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2005 : 09:47:38 [Permalink]
|
dave w.- i wasn't saying that the puzzle itself wasn't fair. what i was saying was that preventing people from using a different skill set than that involved in the obvious way of solving the puzzle is not fair, just as (to use the olympic metaphor) asking someone who is a natural high jumper to compete in the hammer toss would be unfair. the analogy breaks down a bit there, as there is no other effective way (short of performance enhancers, which are expressly forbidden) for the long jumper to toss the hammer.
as to the point of business ethics being enforced by law and regulation, i would sooner trust michael jackson with my 13 year old nephew than trust the laws and ethical business regulations of this country to guide my behaviour in business. if i just do what the law allows, then i am scum. period. i am trying to find a sound, personal, ehical base for decisions. which is why i solved the puzzle in the way that i did.
i have seen puzzles based on (broadly) the same principle before, and i have solved them, eventually, through long and arduous trial and error. i tried solving this particular puzzle in this particular manner to kind of try out my internal "moral barometer". i felt the same sense of accomplishment by finding another way to solve the puzzle as i have all the other times i've solved puzzles i'm not good at by simply slogging it out. and i felt no shame. i then posted my solution to see what others thought of it.
as to the comment about not getting the name of the puzzle, my first instinct was to assume that the progression of numbers on the dice had something to do with phi, but i couldn't see any other relation to the petals on a rose. but, i am not a maths person. if you would like to pm me, i would love to find out the signifigance. and i wasn't referring to that as the red herring. i am perfectly willing to admit (and indeed think it likely) that the puzzle name is very signifigant to the solution, and i am just to dim to see it. but i still fail to see why certain other parts of the page and the puzzle are done the way they are.
the vonnegut story that this situation makes me think of is harrison bergaron(sp?). not sure if that is what you were thinking as well.
|
all great truths began as blasphemies.
--g.b. shaw
yes, i am aware that i do not use capital letters. it is discrimination, and discrimination is wrong. period. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2005 : 13:30:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by sumnihil
dave w.- i wasn't saying that the puzzle itself wasn't fair. what i was saying was that preventing people from using a different skill set than that involved in the obvious way of solving the puzzle is not fair, just as (to use the olympic metaphor) asking someone who is a natural high jumper to compete in the hammer toss would be unfair. the analogy breaks down a bit there, as there is no other effective way (short of performance enhancers, which are expressly forbidden) for the long jumper to toss the hammer.
No, what wouldn't be fair is for the long jumper to volunteer to toss the hammer, and then suggest - due to his limitations and/or impatience - that it would be more "fair" if he got a 10-meter "gimme" and/or was allowed to use a lighter hammer.quote:
as to the point of business ethics being enforced by law and regulation, i would sooner trust michael jackson with my 13 year old nephew than trust the laws and ethical business regulations of this country to guide my behaviour in business. if i just do what the law allows, then i am scum. period. i am trying to find a sound, personal, ehical base for decisions. which is why i solved the puzzle in the way that i did.
I believe you're confusing ethics with morals, but it could just be me.quote:
i have seen puzzles based on (broadly) the same principle before, and i have solved them, eventually, through long and arduous trial and error. i tried solving this particular puzzle in this particular manner to kind of try out my internal "moral barometer".
Okay, now I'm more sure of it.quote:
i felt the same sense of accomplishment by finding another way to solve the puzzle as i have all the other times i've solved puzzles i'm not good at by simply slogging it out.
Hmmmmm. I tend to get a "f-ing cool! I got it!" sort of epiphany moment. I've not gotten the same sense of achievement when going around the intended obstacles.quote:
and i felt no shame.
Was that suggested?quote:
i then posted my solution to see what others thought of it.
And your conclusions, based upon this input?quote:
as to the comment about not getting the name of the puzzle, my first instinct was to assume that the progression of numbers on the dice had something to do with phi, but i couldn't see any other relation to the petals on a rose. but, i am not a maths person. if you would like to pm me, i would love to find out the signifigance.
I can only tell you three things...
Seriously, had I created the web page we've been focused on, instead of "Your mission is to work out how the computer calculates the score..." I would have written "Your mission is to work out why the computer calculates the score it does..." As written, in my opinion, the puzzle is only half-solved. Lucky for me, I suppose, that both the "how" and the "why" came to me simultaneously.quote:
and i wasn't referring to that as the red herring. i am perfectly willing to admit (and indeed think it likely) that the puzzle name is very signifigant to the solution, and i am just to dim to see it. but i still fail to see why certain other parts of the page and the puzzle are done the way they are.
Can't help you there, either.quote:
the vonnegut story that this situation makes me think of is harrison bergaron(sp?). not sure if that is what you were thinking as well.
Indeed it was. Thanks for remembering for me. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sumnihil
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2005 : 16:36:52 [Permalink]
|
dave w - the point about the long jumper/hammerthrow thing goes back to my earlier statement about the exercise being a puzzle, rather than a competition. bad idea for me to back my own logic up with a metaphor i wasn't completely comfortable with, so touchè there.
as for the "ethics/morals" mix up, i am an english major, not a philosopher, and i do sometimes use these words interchangeably. my bad.
the quote about not feeling shame was meant to address the fact that my moral self did not feel shame upon solving the puzzle in the way that i had, not to imply that anyone here suggested that i should.
as to the rest of it, i still don't get it. not at all. why couldn't it have been a freakin' word jumble? i would have kicked the shit out of a good word jumble.
yeah, vonnegut's dreamy, isn't he? |
all great truths began as blasphemies.
--g.b. shaw
yes, i am aware that i do not use capital letters. it is discrimination, and discrimination is wrong. period. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
