| Author | Message | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 548 Registered: 3-2004 |
Working. Destroyed, probably unintentionally. Worth more. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 483 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is this a sequence of events? Is there an object involved? That worked before, was destroyed, and now doesn't work but is worth more? Is it worth more because it doesn't work? Because how it was destroyed? Is it an historical artifact? A work of art? Was it a machine? Device? Famous person(s) involved? Is it unique? Is that why it's worth more? Was it unique before it was destroyed? | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 549 Registered: 3-2004 |
Galfisk: Is this a sequence of events? Yes Is there an object involved? Yes That worked before, was destroyed, and now doesn't work but is worth more? Exactly Is it worth more because it doesn't work? Because how it was destroyed? This Is it an historical artifact? A work of art? Was it a machine? Device? This Famous person(s) involved? Yes Is it unique? Noish Is that why it's worth more? Was it unique before it was destroyed? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 491 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was it destroyed by the famous person? Is that why it's worth more? Is it a guitar smashed by a rock star? If not, OTRT? | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 552 Registered: 3-2004 |
Galfisk: Was it destroyed by the famous person? Yes Is that why it's worth more? Yes Is it a guitar smashed by a rock star? No If not, OTRT? No, apart from the famous person deduction | ||
| Associate (Associate)
New member Username: Associate Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2009 |
Is the "unintentionally" ruling done by the inventor? A peer speaking? Is this a true story? Era/time period relevant? Religious reasons for destruction? Ethical reasons? Orders from an authoritative party? Orders from a government? Is the production of the device prohibited? Is this device scientific? Artistic? Musical? Metaphorical? (i.e. a thought) tangible? Is the device destructive if properly working? If so, what can it possibly destroy? Was it expensive and/or time consuming to make? | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 558 Registered: 3-2004 |
Associate: Is the "unintentionally" ruling done by the inventor? No, I did it and many with me. The "probably" was a bit tongue-in-cheek, it was practically impossible for it to be intentional. Even if he had wanted to do it, which he subconsciously may have wanted deep down. I hope that clears things up... A peer speaking? Someone did speak it out as well Is this a true story? Yes, though it's not much of a "story", it happened a few days ago. Era/time period relevant? Yes, see above Religious reasons for destruction? No, it was unintentional Ethical reasons? Orders from an authoritative party? Orders from a government? Is the production of the device prohibited? Not at all Is this device scientific? I would say technical Artistic? Musical? Metaphorical? (i.e. a thought) tangible? This Is the device destructive if properly working? Not intentionally, but may show to be so If so, what can it possibly destroy? People, possibly, beware of being mislead and a small risk of FA Was it expensive and/or time consuming to make? Not extremely so, no | ||
| Associate (Associate)
New member Username: Associate Post Number: 13 Registered: 11-2009 |
Is it valuable due to a discovery? (i.e. rare metal used as power conducter)or any other discovery? Did he take it apart, and plan to re asseble it? Was he tweaking/improving it? Testing? Working on another invention, and unintentionally doing something to the wrong invention, destroying it? Is the invention's concept made by the inventor who destroyed it? Was he sad/angry he destroyed it? Did he know it was worth more? Was the construction of the object a show for the public, and was valuable because it showed a screw-up of a well known inventor? Is it valuable due to the manner of which it was destroyed? Result of insanity/seizure? (he could have been out of his mind and smashed it, not realizing it was him days later) | ||
| Yojimbo (Yojimbo)
New member Username: Yojimbo Post Number: 83 Registered: 11-2009 |
was the now-worthless "technical" item used for: art? information technology? hobby/pastime (amazing fishing reel...?) transportation? domestic purpose (iMop, iVacuum-cleaner, iPersonal-android, etc...)? sport? science: aeronautics,biology, botany, cosmology, etc. fine dining? was it destroyed while it was being used for its primary purpose? was the device unique, or (one of a pair/a few/several/many/lots and lots?) manufactured? was the device destroyed by the person who made it? was the person who made the device famous for having made it? for having made other inventions/devices/innovations? event (of destruction of the device) captured by media? text/audio/video? was the media-capture, if any, intended to capture destruction of the device, or other significant event? was the destruction an unintended result of an event at which there was media capture (or otherwise...)? has the destruction of the device by the famous person, thus rendering it more valuable (or FA, from "worth more" as I think I read it; can't see the thread now that I'm previewing/spell-cheking my post...?), become the most significant part of the event in most of the minds which are aware of it? is that the meme of it, so to speak? is that Q too vague...? is/was this a "viral" phenomenon; internet post? video post? forum post? LTPF relevant? | ||
| Yojimbo (Yojimbo)
New member Username: Yojimbo Post Number: 84 Registered: 11-2009 |
forgot to ask: solid-state or moving parts, or both? is this post too short? | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 567 Registered: 3-2004 |
Associate: Is it valuable due to a discovery? (i.e. rare metal used as power conducter)or any other discovery? No. Why it became more valuable is already established by Galfisk, and it's not that valuable now. Probably a few times more than before. Did he take it apart, and plan to re asseble it? Was he tweaking/improving it? Testing? Working on another invention, and unintentionally doing something to the wrong invention, destroying it? No to all of these Is the invention's concept made by the inventor who destroyed it? No and FA Was he sad/angry he destroyed it? No Did he know it was worth more? I don't think he gave it a thought Was the construction of the object a show for the public, and was valuable because it showed a screw-up of a well known inventor? No Is it valuable due to the manner of which it was destroyed? Possibly, but more because of who destroyed the device Result of insanity/seizure? (he could have been out of his mind and smashed it, not realizing it was him days later) No Yojimbo: was the now-worthless "technical" item used for: art? FA information technology? This hobby/pastime (amazing fishing reel...?) transportation? domestic purpose (iMop, iVacuum-cleaner, iPersonal-android, etc...)? sport? science: aeronautics,biology, botany, cosmology, etc. fine dining? was it destroyed while it was being used for its primary purpose? No was the device unique, or (one of a pair/a few/several/many/lots and lots? This) manufactured? It was mass-produced in a factory was the device destroyed by the person who made it? No was the person who made the device famous for having made it? No for having made other inventions/devices/innovations? No event (of destruction of the device) captured by media? text/audio/video? On TV was the media-capture, if any, intended to capture destruction of the device No, or other significant event? This was the destruction an unintended result of an event at which there was media capture (or otherwise...)? Yes, though it was more of a side-effect than a result of the event has the destruction of the device by the famous person, thus rendering it more valuable (or FA, from "worth more" as I think I read it; can't see the thread now that I'm previewing/spell-cheking my post...?), become the most significant part of the event in most of the minds which are aware of it? No, not at all. This was a minor, unintentional "side-show". People will remember the main event. is that the meme of it, so to speak? is that Q too vague...? The Q is OK, but no, many didn't even notice this mishap and most who did won't think about it a week later is/was this a "viral" phenomenon; internet post? video post? forum post? LTPF relevant? No to all solid-state This or moving parts, or both? | ||
| Yojimbo (Yojimbo)
New member Username: Yojimbo Post Number: 88 Registered: 11-2009 |
was the device hand-held? small enough to be? a communicator (cell, "handy," iPhone, blackberry...)? navigation device? camera? other media recorder? data storage device? was it destroyed physically? (as in, smashed/other - a tape erased by a strong magnet wouldn't fit that description, in my mind) was it merely rendered useless for its intended purpose, or was the damage obvious? would someone require special knowledge to be aware that the device had been destroyed, if they were watching it on TV? or would any idiot (me, for instance) be able to tell it had been destroyed? | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 570 Registered: 3-2004 |
Yojimbo: was the device hand-held? Yes small enough to be? a communicator (cell, This "handy," iPhone, blackberry...)? navigation device? camera? other media recorder? data storage device? was it destroyed physically? Yes (as in, smashed This/other - a tape erased by a strong magnet wouldn't fit that description, in my mind) was it merely rendered useless for its intended purpose, or was the damage obvious? Yes would someone require special knowledge to be aware that the device had been destroyed, if they were watching it on TV? or would any idiot (me, for instance) be able to tell it had been destroyed? It would be obvious, you would also hear it was destroyed | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 523 Registered: 9-2009 |
So some celebrity destroyed (his? her?) cellphone, and it's worth more as "cellphone destroyed by [celebrity]" than simply as "cellphone"? Do we need to find out: how it was accidentally destroyed? Who the celebrity was? At what event it happened? Something else? | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 580 Registered: 3-2004 |
Galfisk: So some celebrity destroyed (his? her?) cellphone, and it's worth more as "cellphone destroyed by [celebrity]" than simply as "cellphone"? Yes Do we need to find out: how it was accidentally destroyed? Who the celebrity was? At what event it happened? Exactly the three things left to find out :-) Something else? | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 534 Registered: 9-2009 |
Movie celebrity? Music? Political? Religious? Other? Was the phone: dropped? Crushed? Opened or closed incorrectly? Subjected to a foreign substance? Was the display damaged? Exact damage relevant? | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 584 Registered: 3-2004 |
Galfisk: Movie celebrity? Music? Political? Religious? Other? This Was the phone: dropped? Crushed? This Opened or closed incorrectly? Subjected to a foreign substance? Was the display damaged? Yes Exact damage relevant? No, it's enough that it was crushed | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 624 Registered: 3-2004 |
HINT: The event included "A Round Sum" of money, or at least a lot if it. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 648 Registered: 3-2004 |
I will kill off this puzzle and spiol it since the lateral part of it is more or less done and finding the rest isn't that interesting compared to my two other puzzles, which I will concentrate on for now. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 652 Registered: 3-2004 |
*************** SPOILER *************** The more lateral thinking has already been done on this, so I will spoil the puzzle since finding out the rest is much less interesting than my two other puzzles: Puzzle statement: Working. Destroyed, probably unintentionally. Worth more. We have already found out that it's a cell phone that somehow gets crushed by a celebrity, and because of that is worth more than when it was working. The setting is a golf tournament just over a week ago, and the celebrity is Tiger Woods. A stray shot, instead of hitting a spectator, hit his cell phone and crushed it. With TV footage proving the autenticity of the accident, it's probably a better idea to sell the phone on eBay than to ask for damages paid. Which he may or may not get, since cell phones are often not allowed at golf tournaments. | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 657 Registered: 3-2004 |
The "Round" in the puzzle statement was a hint to the golf ball. It was maybe also a comment on the $3 million Tiger Woods charged just for coming to the tournament. Just after he had passed the $1 billion in total earnings. | ||
| Peter365 (Peter365)
New member Username: Peter365 Post Number: 2299 Registered: 1-2007 |
Nice puzzle Tommyp . I did see the incident referred to in the puzzle. On the somewhat controversial subject of Tiger's appearance fee my opinion is that while it's somewhat vulgar for one man to earn this much the presence of Tiger in the field created massive profits for the locality due to the increased attendance and media presence. It's really a win win situation for all involved. I think any golf tournament would want Tiger to be playing in it. Do you agree? | ||
| Tommyp (Tommyp)
New member Username: Tommyp Post Number: 683 Registered: 3-2004 |
Yes, of course he's free to ask whatever he wants and the tournaments are free to pay what they wants. But "Appearance money" has a bad ring to it here in Sweden, people think that (since he anyway wins such a high percentage of "his" tournaments) he could have demanded the organizers to add $2 million to first price and $1 million to second in the tournaments he attends... He's a nice guy anyway, and knows the Swedish translation of "Honey, take out the garbage"... :-) |
