Subject:
|
Re: Remaining parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:31:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1757 times
|
| |
|
|
Matt Brooks wrote:
>
> Frank Filz wrote:
> >
> > Cary Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, this is normal. Sometimes the extra pieces are used for alternative
> > > models in the instructions or pictured on the box. Sometimes the extra
> > > pieces are spares for easily broken pieces, such as helmet visors. Sometimes
> > > the extra pieces are a mystery, like the R2D2 bodies in the Statue of
> > > Liberty sculpture.
> > >
> > > Duplicate sets always have exactly the same extra pieces.
> >
> > That isn't 100% true. The pieces most often duplicated are the very
> > small pieces. Usually an extra one of these is included because one of
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > them will show as 23 grams or heavier. This would then explain why I
> > can't recall ever getting TWO extra of a small part.
> >
> > FUT: lugnet.off-topic.geek
> >
> > --
> > Frank Filz
>
> WOW Frank! That was rather.... long winded. What's scarier? I followed
> most of it, from my University imposed, very brief exposure to
> statistics. Ewe... I think I actually learned something there!
I had a relatively brief exposure to statistics, but have picked up bits
here and there. I actually got keyed into the theory which is the
foundation of the extra parts during a job interview. Yes, I actually
learned something at a job interview. When I was interviewing at Intel a
bunch of years back, one of the managers posed me a question:
- Regulations require a shipped box of cereal to not have less than the
stated weight.
- The FDA runs checks every once in a while, their scale is accurate to
+- 1 oz.
- Your scale is accurate to +- 1 oz.
How much do you have to pack into the box to guarantee the FDA never
determines that you're shipping underweight boxes?
I didn't manage to puzzle it out, so the manager gave me some hints. Of
course, given what we just went through, you have to pack the boxes with
2 extra ounces of cereal (the question posed did not include the
standard deviation bit, it assumed the scales reading always fell within
the tolerance - which actually will be the case for many measurement
systems [for example, if you have a ruler marked in 10ths of inches, it
is accurate to +- 0.1 inch, and barring a blunder on the part of the
person using the ruler, will always measure within 0.1 inch]).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Remaining parts
|
| (...) <SNIP> (...) WOW Frank! That was rather.... long winded. What's scarier? I followed most of it, from my University imposed, very brief exposure to statistics. Ewe... I think I actually learned something there! Matt (26 years ago, 12-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
