| Author | Message | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
Practically impossible. But useful. Warning: this is a very silly puzzle indeed. | ||
| Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
|
Dancing? Counting on London Transport to get you anywhere on time? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Haenlomal (Haenlomal) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 09:26 pm: Dancing? No - this is possible, but useless. Counting on London Transport to get you anywhere on time? This is both impossible and useless. | ||
| John Morahan (Wunderland)
|
Winning a lottery? anything to do with a game of chance? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By John Morahan (Wunderland) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 09:59 pm: Winning a lottery? anything to do with a game of chance? no, but good literal - if not lateral - thinking  | ||
| Lynne (Lynne)
|
Do you mean it would be useful if it wasn't impossible to achieve whatever it is? | ||
| John Morahan (Wunderland)
|
Douglas Adams relevant? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Lynne (Lynne) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:13 pm: Do you mean it would be useful if it wasn't impossible to achieve whatever it is? no - if it were possible to achieve whatever it is, I could see a use for so doing. But the use for so doing has nothing to do with why this practically impossible thing is actually useful. If you see what I mean. By John Morahan (Wunderland) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:13 pm: Douglas Adams relevant? To almost everything, except this puzzle. | ||
| John Morahan (Wunderland)
|
Is it useful because it's practically impossible? like a lock that's practically impossible to pick? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By John Morahan (Wunderland) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:35 pm: Is it useful because it's practically impossible? like a lock that's practically impossible to pick? not this kind of thing. Some "thing" is practically impossible in one sense, yet useful in another sense - for very vague values of "thing" indeed. | ||
| Mezzoforte (Mezzoforte)
|
Could it be done in the future? in Star Trek? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Mezzoforte (Mezzoforte) on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 02:16 am: Could it be done in the future? it could be done in the present, with immense difficulty in Star Trek? I imagine that the crew of the Enterprise might find it a little easier to do than we would, but I can't imagine that they would have any more reason actually to do it than we would. | ||
| Katy (Katy)
|
Does it involve objects? People? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Katy (Katy) on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 08:34 am: Does it involve objects? People? It involves people, non-human animals, and at least one inanimate object. | ||
| Katy (Katy)
|
In your answer to Lynne at 10:17 you say if it were possible to achieve whatever it is, I could see a use for so doing. But the use for so doing has nothing to do with why this practically impossible thing is actually useful. If you see what I mean. do you mean that setting in place whatever it would take to make it possible would be worthwhile in its own right? Then the result would also be useful? Anything to do with talking to animals? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Katy (Katy) on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 08:56 am: In your answer to Lynne at 10:17 you say if it were possible to achieve whatever it is, I could see a use for so doing. But the use for so doing has nothing to do with why this practically impossible thing is actually useful. If you see what I mean. do you mean that setting in place whatever it would take to make it possible would be worthwhile in its own right? Setting in place whatever it would take to make it possible would be a complete and utter waste of time. Then the result would also be useful? The result would be of extremely limited use, in a bizarre set of circumstances. However, in those circumstances, it would not be entirely useless. Anything to do with talking to animals? no, but good thinking | ||
| Katy (Katy)
|
Thanks for clearing that up! Are the animals specific animal(s)? So: Protozoa (phyla: protozoa) Fish (group: Pisces) Echinoderms such as starfish (phyla: Echinodermata) Amphibians such as frogs (class: Amphibia) Annelids such as earthworms (phyla: Annelida) Reptiles such as crocodiles (class: Reptilia) Mollusks such as octopus (phyla: Mollusca) Birds (class: Aves) Arthropods such as crabs, spiders and insects (phyla: Arthropoda) Mammals (class: Mammalia) Crustaceans such as crabs (subphyla: Crustacea) Marsupials such as kangaroos (order: Marsupialia) Arachnids such as spiders (subphyla: Chelicerata class: Arachnida) Primates such as gorillas and chimpanzees (order: Primates) Insects (subphyla: Uniramia class: Insecta) Rodents such as mice (order: Rodentia) Cetaceans such as whales and dolphins ( order: Cetacea) Animals such as seals (order: Carnivora family: Phocidae) (with grateful thanks to http://www.kidport.com) Could the people be anyone? Or a specific race? group? Does everything happen on earth? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Katy (Katy) on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 09:05 am: Thanks for clearing that up! glad to be of service Are the animals specific animal(s)? yes So: Protozoa (phyla: protozoa) Fish (group: Pisces) Echinoderms such as starfish (phyla: Echinodermata) Amphibians such as frogs (class: Amphibia) Annelids such as earthworms (phyla: Annelida) Reptiles such as crocodiles (class: Reptilia) Mollusks such as octopus crumbs - if I were giving examples of taxonomy, I would not cite the octopus as representative of the molluscs. But what do I know? (phyla: Mollusca) Birds (class: Aves) this one Arthropods such as crabs, spiders and insects (phyla: Arthropoda) Mammals (class: Mammalia) Crustaceans such as crabs (subphyla: Crustacea) Marsupials such as kangaroos (order: Marsupialia) Arachnids such as spiders (subphyla: Chelicerata class: Arachnida) Primates such as gorillas and chimpanzees (order: Primates) Insects (subphyla: Uniramia class: Insecta) Rodents such as mice (order: Rodentia) Cetaceans such as whales and dolphins ( order: Cetacea) Animals such as seals (order: Carnivora family: Phocidae) (with grateful thanks to http://www.kidport.com) Could the people be anyone? yes, in theory, though... Or a specific race? ...some races are rather more likely to find this thing useful than others group? Does everything happen on earth? yes | ||
| Katy (Katy)
|
So it involves some people and some birds and objects. Anything to do with people being able to fly independently of machines/ gliders? | ||
| Katy (Katy)
|
Is the title relevant? "Do one" isn't correct in that sentence, is that relevant? | ||
| David Burn (Woubit)
|
By Katy (Katy) on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 09:32 am: So it involves some people and some birds and objects. It involves an unspecified but strictly positive number of people, an unspecified number of birds greater than one, and at least one inanimate object. Anything to do with people being able to fly independently of machines/ gliders? no By Katy (Katy) on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 09:35 am: Is the title relevant? "Do one" isn't correct in that sentence, is that relevant? The title is no more than a catchphrase of the great Thomas "Fats" Waller. It is not relevant in the least. | ||
| Katy (Katy)
|
are the birds all the same type? smaller than a sparrow? Roughly the same? Smaller than a thrush? Roughly the same? Smaller than a chicken? Roughly the same? Larger than a chicken? |
