Welcome to the Lounge

OriginalGriff4-Dec-13 0:37

4-Dec-13 0:37

Maybe I need another coffee!

CBadger4-Dec-13 0:41

CBadger

4-Dec-13 0:41

Griff was close but is foresee another problem.

I will agree they choose one person that will change a specific switch to a specific value and no one else ever will. So now lets say they choose that the prisoner counting changes the left switch ON. Now when anyone enters the room they can switch the Left switch OFF only 2 times. So when it is ON they switch it OFF until they did that 2, only the counting prisoner will ever switch the Left switch ON, and every time he does that he counts the number of times he does that. Now being that there is 23 prisoners (- 1 as the counter is excluded), the counter should switch the left switch ON 41 times. Because under worst case scenario if the first person were to switch OFF the left switch before the counter's first visit, when he counts to 41, most would have switched it twice, if not it would mean that once person only switched it once. $Shucks | :-\$

Loading signature...

. . . Please Wait . . .

Motor Viper4-Dec-13 0:52

Motor Viper

4-Dec-13 0:52

I still think Griff is correct. The first time the counter goes in he effectively resets the problem to the one where the left switch starts in the up position, however he does not know if anyone has been in before him so he would not start counting until next time he visits, which is effectively the same as starting the count immediately but adding an extra 1.

CBadger4-Dec-13 1:34

CBadger

4-Dec-13 1:34

but the dilemma remains in the counting, that is why I say he has to count to double the amount of prisoners excluding the counter times two. Safer and more secure letting everyone do it twice at so that worst case will be when someone went in and changed it before the counter's first visit, the worst case scenario would be that one person only changed it once instead of twice. Now if you are only going to do it once you will run into the dilemma of miscounting one...

Loading signature...

. . . Please Wait . . .

Freak304-Dec-13 1:41

Freak30

4-Dec-13 1:41

But if the left switch starts in the up position, the "counting" prisoner will never reach 23, because the other 22 prisoners will only move the switch down once each.

I think this is the reason to let everyone switch two times at most. This way you have a safe margin of 1.
- If the switch was down at the beginning and the "counting" prisoner enters first, he will reach 44 after 1 prisoner has moved the switch down once and the others twice.
- If the switch was up at the beginning and the "counting" prisoner enters first, he will reach 44 after all other prisoners have moved the switch down twice.
- If the switch was down at the beginning and another prisoner enters first, the "counter" will reach 44 after all other prisoners have moved the switch down twice.
- If the switch was up at the beginning and another prisoner enters first, the "counter" will reach 44 after all other prisoners have moved the switch down twice.

The good thing about pessimism is, that you are always either right or pleasently surprised.

CBadger4-Dec-13 2:08

CBadger

4-Dec-13 2:08

Exactly

Loading signature...

. . . Please Wait . . .

Mohamad M. Mohamad4-Dec-13 2:12

Mohamad M. Mohamad

4-Dec-13 2:12

Use a pen to mark the count each time one enter the room write on wall and add the counter, once the counter reach 23 they are all visited.

My Name in English[^] Translation done By OriginalGriff

Dave has decorated for X-mas, I see...

PIEBALDconsult4-Dec-13 4:10

PIEBALDconsult

4-Dec-13 4:10

They all agree to call the same lawyer and tell him they were there.

Edit:
0) The warden would likely lose his job if he carried out the promise.
1) There is no guarantee that the warden will ever have any of the prisoners enter the room.
2) There is no guarantee that the warden will have them enter in a time frame that precludes the death of any of the prisoners.
3) There is no guarantee that the warden (or others) won't mess with the switches.

"The only way to win is not to play." -- WOPR

Johnny J.3-Dec-13 22:22

Johnny J.

3-Dec-13 22:22

Proof[^]

Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience
Greg King
-----
I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific.
Lily Tomlin, Actress

Re: Dave has decorated for X-mas, I see...

Dalek Dave3-Dec-13 22:40

Dalek Dave

3-Dec-13 22:40

That is so cool!

Michelle would go mad if I did that though.

---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Re: Dave has decorated for X-mas, I see...

Johnny J.3-Dec-13 23:05

Johnny J.

3-Dec-13 23:05

Speaking of Michelle[^] Wink | ;)

Re: Dave has decorated for X-mas, I see...

Johnny J.4-Dec-13 2:04

Johnny J.

4-Dec-13 2:04

More Dalek X-mas[^]

CCC 4/12/13

Dalek Dave3-Dec-13 22:01

Dalek Dave

3-Dec-13 22:01

"Watery, airy, fiery, earthy and straightforward."(10)

---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

OriginalGriff3-Dec-13 22:09

3-Dec-13 22:09

Watery, airy, fiery, earthy

and

straightforward

ELEMENTARY my dear Watson! Laugh | :laugh:

DaveAuld3-Dec-13 22:16

DaveAuld

3-Dec-13 22:16

What about the 5th Element......Milla, or should I say LeeLoo Rose | [Rose]

Dave
Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn|GitHub

Folding Stats: Team CodeProject

OriginalGriff3-Dec-13 22:27

3-Dec-13 22:27

Ooo - I'd forgotten her! Now I have to dig the carpet fluff off the back of my tongue! Laugh | :laugh:

Dalek Dave3-Dec-13 22:40

Dalek Dave

3-Dec-13 22:40

Well Done!

---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

SSD Lifespan

Jacquers3-Dec-13 21:55

Jacquers

3-Dec-13 21:55

I have a question for those of you lucky enough to have a ssd drive. I've heard that the lifespan of the drive is more limited than a normal hdd, due to limited write cycles. Now for the average user this shouldn't be a problem, but for a developer that uses Visual Studio (which does a lot of file I/O deleting and creating files during compiles) will this become an issue where I would wear out a ssd quicker than the average user? Someone I know has a friend who apparently has gone through 2 ssd drives within a short timespan, although I don't know if it's because of the brand / quality of the ssd he used.

Another option seems to be a hybrid drive, which uses a ssd cache (8GB or so) for the most frequently accessed files and then normal hdd storage for the rest. Does anyone have one of these and does it make a noticeable difference in performance?

Thanks Smile | :)

DaveAuld3-Dec-13 22:05

DaveAuld

3-Dec-13 22:05

See this test that says adding more system ram can reduction SSD write requirements.
http://lifehacker.com/every-modern-ssd-has-a-far-far-far-longer-expected-li-826840082[^]

In general, I don't think you should worry. The algorithms used in the write allocations are meant to be pretty good now, so the distribution is spread across all the cells.

Dave
Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn|GitHub

Folding Stats: Team CodeProject

OriginalGriff3-Dec-13 22:11

3-Dec-13 22:11

Which means that when it starts to fail, everything fails at the same time? Laugh | :laugh:

DaveAuld3-Dec-13 22:14

DaveAuld

3-Dec-13 22:14

Thing is, how do you know it starts to fail? What system messages to you see? As the cells become unavailable, does the disk size reduce, or does it give you a 'Reaching End Of Life' warning.

Never seen anything to say what actually happens.... Confused | :confused:

Dave
Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn|GitHub

Folding Stats: Team CodeProject

Jacquers3-Dec-13 22:34

Jacquers

3-Dec-13 22:34

I think the SMART info should be able tell you what's going on.

OriginalGriff3-Dec-13 22:44

3-Dec-13 22:44

Yeah - I know what happens with a "real" HDD - you get noises, slow access, if you are lucky a SMART warning, and you generally have enough time to offload another backup of everything important. But if it all fails at once...ouch.

[edit]typo: "read" for "real"[/edit]

Dan Neely4-Dec-13 2:44

Dan Neely

4-Dec-13 2:44

If it hits the write endurance wall it becomes read only; but unless you're doing write heavy server IO you'll end up running into the flash cell's 5-10 year lifespan before maxing out the write limit. I don't know what would happen in that case.

Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius

Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt