Great work everyone, the end is near


Recommended Posts

Just a thought...here me out...does it have to be over???

maybe a new neowinian group could be formed. Lovers of puzzles....mystery and excitment...

Im a big dork but I see it entirely possible that every now and again in what time we do have one of us could devise a small puzzle...maybe nothing too hard...maybe something that will take one or two days....we just start spouting off starting clues....once we devise the puzzle....and the rest of us try to find the answer...maybe a clue...1 clue that leads to a sort of online scavanger hunt....or something of the sort......(i guess I just dont want it to end...lol)

Crowen - seen as unifiction have quite a few pointer to this type of puzzle/game on their site I guess we could always continue the challange with them and pick up on a game or two from that site and play along here, I guess it would be a good idea to have a sub-forum for games and puzzles, we could all pick up on a few and have a bit of fun, of course Neowin would always beat UNF to the prizes !!

On a side note has anyone had a prize notifictaion yet - it does state in the rules the winner of the grand prize would know Feb 1st - but if some one has one they are very quiet about it, plus the others 1 through 4 should know within 48 hours - thats passed now and no one is shouting about winning ???

Have all the prizes simply vanished ??

Oh well guess we will know soon enough, the problems we had with the site probebly manifrsting them selves in the prize draw system too.

Good luck all !

See, now this is what I don't understand.......

On the http://vanishingpointgame.com/lokiv/ web site, it says ->

"Enter as often as you'd like, but only the latest answer will be counted"

Which means to me...... Even if you are the first person to answer the question correctly, be careful, because if you change your answer, and your last answer is wrong, then you won't win.....

Right?

Otherwise, they would have written - "Just keep guessing until you get"

Soooooo....... What I don't understand is ->

Why did they contact the winner before the contest was over ?? Isn't that going against their own rule/warning of being careful and not changing the answer ?? Doesn't that really mess things up ?? Because this prevented the winner from changing their mind and guessing wrongly......

Am I the only one who sees this ??

Any feedback would be nice,

Thanks :-)

See, now this is what I don't understand.......

On the http://vanishingpointgame.com/lokiv/ web site, it says ->

"Enter as often as you'd like, but only the latest answer will be counted"

Which means to me...... Even if you are the first person to answer the question correctly, be careful, because if you change your answer, and your last answer is wrong, then you won't win.....

Right?

Otherwise, they would have written - "Just keep guessing until you get"

Soooooo....... What I don't understand is ->

Why did they contact the winner before the contest was over ?? Isn't that going against their own rule/warning of being careful and not changing the answer ?? Doesn't that really mess things up ?? Because this prevented the winner from changing their mind and guessing wrongly......

Am I the only one who sees this ??

Any feedback would be nice,

Thanks :-)

I agree to you, ajdedo. That seems to be a bit weird...

Crowen - seen as unifiction have quite a few pointer to this type of puzzle/game on their site I guess we could always continue the challange with them and pick up on a game or two from that site and play along here, I guess it would be a good idea to have a sub-forum for games and puzzles, we could all pick up on a few and have a bit of fun, of course Neowin would always beat UNF to the prizes !!

That would be great :) it was alot of fun and just seems a shame to give it all up now...after all..together...WE CAN RULE THE WORLD...sort of like pinky and the brain only with alot more mice.....or something...

I think the rules on vanishingpointgame.com specify that the winner of the Meta Prize would be contacted ASAP. I could be wrong, I'm currently in too much of a hurry to check my facts. But I would think that, in the interests of getting the name printed on every chip "between [now] and March 31, 2007", they would indeed contact the Meta winner before the game ended if they had, in fact, won. I just think it's strange that they would have given us more clues to solve the Meta Puzzle if they already had a winner. Why not just change the website and post the answer with the fact that they had a winner? Which, they did--when they stopped the game. Curse them for making us suffer! :angry:

One more question about the rules: "1 per person per household" what's the point of saying "per household" if everyone in the household is allowed to play? Seriously, "per person" would be enough to exclude multiple entries, especially with them repeating a "no multiple entries" clause elsewhere in the rules, so I hope they invalidated brilo211's entries since they obviously kept his wife's.

I should apologize to brilo211 and autter211 for initially posting their win as fake. At the time, it just didn't logic with me. Congratulations you two! :)

POLL: How much would you give to have your name hidden beneath the thermal grease and giant CPU fans of thousands of soon-to-be-outdated AMD systems?

I assign that a cash value of approximately $.01 per chip, so ~$10,000! Please, autter211, ask them to put Neowin+Unfiction on there too!

Congrats again all winners--including Jason (why not--it's not in our power to judge...) Hope I get to join the lesser ranks with my 1440...

The correct answer was given on Sunday, however it was partly by luck and not by following the last clues to Hardee. Since noone was ending up in Hardee, they gave more clues. They couldnt have a solution with an unworkable solution even if one person got the answer right.

Plus, I think they wanted everyone to finally get it right, but for the winner to be first. thats why they had that screen all ready saying "You did answer it correctly, but you werent the first".

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!