editor's notebook The New York Times' website is proudly making it difficult to get anything constructive done today, by offering up an interactive feature in its Science section that lets you try out your roshambo chops against a computer opponent.
OK, it's not, but this digital version of rock-paper-scissors is still a whole lot of fun. Especially since the Times' art department has created a great robot hand that lets you conjure up images of your frustratingly smug android rival, getting you that much more involved.
After being pulverized far too often by the Times' HAL-9000 reject.wanna-be (I played the "Veteran" robot, not the "Novice"), I suddenly hit on a brilliant strategy (with a little help from the note that's perched innocently above the robot opponent's window). Almost immediately things began to change: three games to one in my favor, with no ties. Take that, you
So, here's the deal: If you want to avoid my "spoiler," jump over to the feature and play a few games. Do your best. (Good luck.) Then come right back and read the next paragraph. I'll even put a great big image here so the 'graph will get pushed down the page and you won't be able to peek. OK; bye for now. Be sure to come back soon, or I'll get busted for driving traffic away from our site.
Ah, you're back. Good. I was afraid you'd be playing the addictive game all day. In case you didn't figure it out on your own, my brilliant strategy -- the secret to success in robo-roshambo -- is simply this: Cover everything except your Rock, Paper, and Scissors buttons and play totally randomly. In other words, be completely brainless. Then the droid's statistical database of several hundred past games and the patterns that emerged from them becomes totally useless.
So there it is: Don't think.
As for my brilliant strategy when it comes to writing blog items? I'll leave that one for another time.
Thanks for playing.