Sorry but you can increase effeciency slightly. at the point where the grass meets the path (the second turn, if you join the walkers' path by moving diagonally you will cover less distance. This I have understood from running 200m and 400m races which have curves.
As you can see I get paid to do pretty much nothing
Hmm.. I can totally picture you taking the muddy path only because it, according to you, is more eficient. :-) and giving that exact explanation to nayone who asks. I totally second the opinion of those two stick figure girls.
Also, am glad that my description on ur blog roll has changed. But am not very sure I appreciate the Capital 'V' and 'F'. Am wondering what to make of that.
And unlike you, those girls would actually come up to me and argue that their path is shorter because I am not integrating with respect to the elevation variation on the road!
I don't know if that makes me more or less fortunate!
@saha: Yes I know, and I do that too, though I learnt the technique from playing Need For Speed. I drew the paths like that only to keep the picture neat.
@shrabasti: No, merely efficient.
@WiaN: Who said anything about their being juniors?
@indecision: "I totally second the opinion of those two stick figure girls." Well, consider yourself one of them, then. And the capitalisation was just for emphasis. Why are you always suspicious of my motives?
@introvert: Well, as it happens, the path is level, but if it were not, I'd say one ought to account for elevation variation.
9 comments:
Sorry but you can increase effeciency slightly. at the point where the grass meets the path (the second turn, if you join the walkers' path by moving diagonally you will cover less distance. This I have understood from running 200m and 400m races which have curves.
As you can see I get paid to do pretty much nothing
oh, 'close bracket' after "second turn"
You're hilarious :D
and these girls are your juniors ??? How dare they!
Hmm.. I can totally picture you taking the muddy path only because it, according to you, is more eficient. :-) and giving that exact explanation to nayone who asks. I totally second the opinion of those two stick figure girls.
Also, am glad that my description on ur blog roll has changed. But am not very sure I appreciate the Capital 'V' and 'F'. Am wondering what to make of that.
I can so totally identify with this.
And unlike you, those girls would actually come up to me and argue that their path is shorter because I am not integrating with respect to the elevation variation on the road!
I don't know if that makes me more or less fortunate!
@saha: Yes I know, and I do that too, though I learnt the technique from playing Need For Speed. I drew the paths like that only to keep the picture neat.
@shrabasti: No, merely efficient.
@WiaN: Who said anything about their being juniors?
@indecision: "I totally second the opinion of those two stick figure girls."
Well, consider yourself one of them, then.
And the capitalisation was just for emphasis. Why are you always suspicious of my motives?
@introvert: Well, as it happens, the path is level, but if it were not, I'd say one ought to account for elevation variation.
Funny! :P
if the path is muddy (which it mostly is) your use of the path is anyways less efficient.
Post a Comment