Here's a puzzle for you

[suityou01]

System change - need to recalibrate the scanners, and no changes are allowed.

The answer is to ignore the colour-blind problem, rely on teachers (who you can't rely on to give the classes the right paper) and individual paper to each pupil correctly, and scan everything (ignoring the idea that people might genuinely get 0, or choose not to answer any questions).

How come no-one other than suity can see this simple solution

Erm, thanks.

[Alias]

Everything that goes out is scanned first to say it left...you have a list

Everything that is returned is scanned to say it arrived...you have a sub-set of the original list to compare against and do follow ups if necessary...

[suityou01]

Everything that goes out is scanned first to say it left...you have a list

Everything that is returned is scanned to say it arrived...you have a sub-set of the original list to compare against and do follow ups if necessary...

That would need a system change. Also this is overly complicated. Why scan twice? You have the candidate entry for the exam in the system already.

So in your argument 1< 2

Also 0 < 1

[Alias]

That would need a system change. Also this is overly complicated. Why scan twice? You have the candidate entry for the exam in the system already.

So in your argument 1< 2

Also 0 < 1

Why would it need a system change? your courier already scans the packets so work with them and use that info

(I've seen this done at a previous job too so I know it works)

[doodab]

So in your argument 1< 2

Also 0 < 1

Given that 0 < 1 < 2, that would mean he's absolutely correct then wouldn't it?

If you're going to use tulip analogies, at least use ones that don't contradict what you are trying to say.

[suityou01]

Why would it need a system change? your courier already scans the packets so work with them and use that info

(I've seen this done at a previous job too so I know it works)

OK. So the scanning process kicks off the automarker, right?

In the first scan you don't want this, as the form is not completed. This would require a system change.

What you would not be privvy to is that the second scan would not kick off a second automarker event, so this would break things quite badly.

[suityou01]

Given that 0 < 1 < 2, that would mean he's absolutely correct then wouldn't it?

If you're going to use tulip analogies, at least use ones that don't contradict what you are trying to say.

Et tu Doodab? I thought you were brighter than even me

If 0 < 1 (which it is) and all I want is a positive result, then why scan twice so I have to make my test 1 < 2?

One scan is all that is needed.

HTH

[doodab]

Et tu Doodab? I thought you were brighter than even me

If 0 < 1 (which it is) and all I want is a positive result, then why scan twice so I have to make my test 1 < 2?

One scan is all that is needed.

HTH

0 < 1, always, and 1 < 2, always, so if that's your "test" you are going to get some rather different results than you're expecting.

BTW I'm not suggesting that you should scan things twice, simply pointing out that the way you are bandying mathematical symbols about makes no sense, except perhaps to you.

[suityou01]

0 < 1, always, and 1 < 2, always, so if that's your "test" you are going to get some rather different results than you're expecting.

BTW I'm not suggesting that you should scan things twice, simply pointing out that the way you are bandying mathematical symbols about makes no sense, except perhaps to you.

Sorry Doodab, my bad. What symbol should I use to denote one value being less than another?

Also how does 1 < 2 ever return varying results?

[doodab]

Sorry Doodab, my bad. What symbol should I use to denote one value being less than another?

The point is not that you were using the wrong symbol to denote one value being less than another, the point is that you dismissed what someone else said by stating that "in your argument 1 < 2 and 0 < 1" which given both statements are true is hardly a valid critique is it?

Also how does 1 < 2 ever return varying results?

It doesn't, so it's not going to work very well as a test, as it will always return true. Perhaps you didn't mean "make my test 1 < 2" but that is what you said.

Do you see how what you say and what you mean are sufficiently different that people don't understand what you mean?