Full Discussion: Rock Paper Scissors Top Forums UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers Rock Paper Scissors Post 302303377 by vbe on Thursday 2nd of April 2009 01:00:57 PM. A screen saver with these 3D hands floating around playing Rock, Paper, Scissors! It'll be the greatest screen saver ever made! Ok, so maybe it isn't, but I still kinda like it. I've watched it for a rediculous amount of time, and there's just something about it that I like. I also kinda think it's missing something, but I'm not sure what.
Python is one of the most popular computer programming languages in the world. It's considered easier to learn than other popular languages like C and Java. This is one reason why Python is. App Device Compatibility: Android phones with OS 5 or later and iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch with iOS 9.0 or later. The Access App Only option does not include a zip download. MP3 (256kbps) - Download the zip file and Play with any media player. You also get to Listen with GraphicAudio Access App. How to Install Rock Paper Scissors Game for Windows PC or MAC: Rock Paper Scissors Game is an Android Casual app that is developed by Nithra and published on Google play store on NA. It has already got around 1000 so far with an average rating of 3.0 out of 5 in play store.
I am moving into a new apartment and we are trying to figure out who gets which room (one is worse than the rest so obviously nobody wants that room). There are four of us and we are not all in the same physical location. If we were all together we could draw straws or use some equally random event to decide an ordering to see who picks first and so forth. Being separated by distance the problem is complicated.
It's like playing rock, scissors over the phone. If you blurt out your objects at the same time you can't hear the other person. If there is a delay then the delay will favor one person or at least put one person in a difficult ethical position. If I'm planning to call ‘rock' and after hearing the other person call ‘paper' I have enough time to change my call to ‘scissors', should I (1) accept that I am going to lose and keep my original call or (2) change my call and win. Obviously the ethical choice is (1) not to change. The problem is not which decision is ethical, rather the problem is that somebody ever had to make that ethical decision. A truly random assignment shouldn't involve an ethical decision, or any decision.
My solution was a web app (ruby code below).
Given a list of email addresses, the app randomly orders the email addresses and then emails the same random ordering to each of the addresses.
Each of the recipients get the same email with the same random ordering. Each will know that the ordering was only declared once. There is no faith on any of the participants to act ethically which means that it returns the situation to an event as random and ethically neutral as drawing straws in person.
Here's the code:
Most of the code is just setting up the html, the post form and sending the emails. To reorder a list or array randomly in ruby is particularly simple.
If my_array = ['a@d.com','b@d.com','c@d.com'], then I can simply call sort_by{rand} like this:
I am moving into a new apartment and we are trying to figure out who gets which room (one is worse than the rest so obviously nobody wants that room). There are four of us and we are not all in the same physical location. If we were all together we could draw straws or use some equally random event to decide an ordering to see who picks first and so forth. Being separated by distance the problem is complicated.
It's like playing rock, scissors over the phone. If you blurt out your objects at the same time you can't hear the other person. If there is a delay then the delay will favor one person or at least put one person in a difficult ethical position. If I'm planning to call ‘rock' and after hearing the other person call ‘paper' I have enough time to change my call to ‘scissors', should I (1) accept that I am going to lose and keep my original call or (2) change my call and win. Obviously the ethical choice is (1) not to change. The problem is not which decision is ethical, rather the problem is that somebody ever had to make that ethical decision. A truly random assignment shouldn't involve an ethical decision, or any decision.
My solution was a web app (ruby code below).
Given a list of email addresses, the app randomly orders the email addresses and then emails the same random ordering to each of the addresses.
Each of the recipients get the same email with the same random ordering. Each will know that the ordering was only declared once. There is no faith on any of the participants to act ethically which means that it returns the situation to an event as random and ethically neutral as drawing straws in person.
Given a list of email addresses, the app randomly orders the email addresses and then emails the same random ordering to each of the addresses.
Each of the recipients get the same email with the same random ordering. Each will know that the ordering was only declared once. There is no faith on any of the participants to act ethically which means that it returns the situation to an event as random and ethically neutral as drawing straws in person.
Here's the code:
Most of the code is just setting up the html, the post form and sending the emails. To reorder a list or array randomly in ruby is particularly simple.
If my_array = ['a@d.com','b@d.com','c@d.com'], then I can simply call sort_by{rand} like this:
I am moving into a new apartment and we are trying to figure out who gets which room (one is worse than the rest so obviously nobody wants that room). There are four of us and we are not all in the same physical location. If we were all together we could draw straws or use some equally random event to decide an ordering to see who picks first and so forth. Being separated by distance the problem is complicated.
It's like playing rock, scissors over the phone. If you blurt out your objects at the same time you can't hear the other person. If there is a delay then the delay will favor one person or at least put one person in a difficult ethical position. If I'm planning to call ‘rock' and after hearing the other person call ‘paper' I have enough time to change my call to ‘scissors', should I (1) accept that I am going to lose and keep my original call or (2) change my call and win. Obviously the ethical choice is (1) not to change. The problem is not which decision is ethical, rather the problem is that somebody ever had to make that ethical decision. A truly random assignment shouldn't involve an ethical decision, or any decision.
My solution was a web app (ruby code below).
Given a list of email addresses, the app randomly orders the email addresses and then emails the same random ordering to each of the addresses.
Each of the recipients get the same email with the same random ordering. Each will know that the ordering was only declared once. There is no faith on any of the participants to act ethically which means that it returns the situation to an event as random and ethically neutral as drawing straws in person.
Here's the code:
Rock Paper Scissors (zachyarbrough) Mac Os Update
Most of the code is just setting up the html, the post form and sending the emails. To reorder a list or array randomly in ruby is particularly simple.
If my_array = ['a@d.com','b@d.com','c@d.com'], then I can simply call sort_by{rand} like this:
