Challenge 5: Army Time

[Bond]

Artificial post count boost = happy times.

[jeepnut]

52 -- UN WON BY ONLY 2!!!!!!!!

Great save by Yoda! Would've been a tie otherwise

I count 22 for USA. How do you get 52 for UN?

[BreakABone]

Artificial post count boost = happy times.

Artificial post count?
All legit.
Nothing articifial about it!

52 -- UN WON BY ONLY 2!!!!!!!!

Great save by Yoda! Would've been a tie otherwise

Working on the honor system here.
The UN wins!

(I already scored it)
So 3 in a row for domination.
Let's see if challenge 6 goes the same way.

[jeepnut]

Artificial post count?
All legit.
Nothing articifial about it!



Working on the honor system here.
The UN wins!

(I already scored it)
So 3 in a row for domination.
Let's see if challenge 6 goes the same way.

I still don't see how UN won. There is no way they could have got 52 points if I understand the game correctly.

[manasecret]

52 wasn't my point count, it was only my post count. Just something to make sure I didn't post the same thing twice in a row (which I ended up doing once anyway).

But I miscounted anyway, we actually one by four. EDIT: And by four, I mean ten. Yeesh all these numbers are making me cross-eyed.

UN: 32
AM: 22
CA: 6

At least, I think. I was eight off the first time I counted so...

[Yoda9864]

I counted 25 for the UN.....:confused:

[BreakABone]

Well results will vary but these are my numbers and Swan can double check.

UN- 30
USA- 23
Canada- 7

[Jason1]

Bah sorry I missed this guys.

[Fox 6]

cool a challenge! rock. too bad i missed out :P

[jeepnut]

Well results will vary but these are my numbers and Swan can double check.

UN- 30
USA- 23
Canada- 7

Just wanted to make sure someone actually counted. I invested a lot of time in this challenge and wanted to make sure my efforts were recognized. :)

[manasecret]

Jeepnut, you got the most points out of anyone. You had like a ten point roll there for awhile, and then like ten more right after that but broken up every once in awhile. What was your secret, sir?

[jeepnut]

Jeepnut, you got the most points out of anyone. You had like a ten point roll there for awhile, and then like ten more right after that but broken up every once in awhile. What was your secret, sir?

I tried my best to figure out the exact time to post according to my wristwatch. Turns out if I clicked post reply halfway between 41 and 42 seconds on my watch, I usually got it. You were rolling too for a while. Were you using the same method?

[manasecret]

I tried my best to figure out the exact time to post according to my wristwatch. Turns out if I clicked post reply halfway between 41 and 42 seconds on my watch, I usually got it. You were rolling too for a while. Were you using the same method?

Haha, yep, except I was using my Windows system clock, which also has that second hand in there. I had it figured out early on that I needed to click sometime between 53 and 54 seconds, but closer to the 53 side. Wristwatch was probably better, since the length of the Windows seconds would vary slightly, since the CPU is too busy doing a bunch of other crap for it to be exact.

Then I figured out using the mouse would sometimes cause me to miss the button. So I used Tab to highlight the button and all I had to do was press Enter on the keyboard.

[thatmariolover]

Haha, yep, except I was using my Windows system clock, which also has that second hand in there. I had it figured out early on that I needed to click sometime between 53 and 54 seconds, but closer to the 53 side. Wristwatch was probably better, since the length of the Windows seconds would vary slightly, since the CPU is too busy doing a bunch of other crap for it to be exact.

Then I figured out using the mouse would sometimes cause me to miss the button. So I used Tab to highlight the button and all I had to do was press Enter on the keyboard.

Haha I was doing the same thing. But you're right, it's slightly off. Honestly though, there's no excuse for that. There should always be enough CPU to do an accurate measurement of time.

[manasecret]

The measurement is generally very accurate. But all kinds of delays have to be taken in account when taking that accurate measurement from deep down in the cpu somewhere and displaying it to the screen. You have to contend with all kinds of threads running at the same time, all trying to take up the CPU time, and consider that the little system clock display is not considered a high priority thread. Then you have the delays inherent in sending the value to RAM and then back out the RAM through to the video card or whatever traversing is needed, finally on to the screen. There are so many variables there, that while possible to get a super accurate clock display, it's just not worth the trouble.