The Questions Concerning Technology

[The Toad to Wigan Pier]

In an effort to make myself finally finish this, I am today announcing The Questions Concerning Technology. This is an all tossup side event about technology. This will not just be on modern gadgets and shit, but on the technology in general. The distributional per packet I am using is:
2 Consumer Technology
1 Trash
2 Historical Technology
1 Failed/Defunct Products
1 Computer Technology
1 Industrial
1 Transportation
1 Military
1 "Science"
4 Hard Computer Science
1 Food/Agricultural/Medical
4 Miscellaneous (this includes technologies that don't fit elsewhere, commentary/criticism of technology, people noted for using technology, etc)

The distribution is more of a guideline I am using as opposed to a rule I am following, so there will be variation. As for difficulty, while there will be questions as easy as "keyboard" or "airplane", a lot of these questions will be very difficult. This tournament will have a lot of my take on Cheynesian style whimsy in the answer lines, clues(lots of ancedotes, some even personal!), and even language. There will be at least 10 packets and I am targeting finishing by Chicago Open(whenever that is).

Locations:
Waterloo?

[mhayes]

4 Hard Computer Science

YES

[Mike Bentley]

It goes without saying that I am interested in playing in this tournament.

[Fond du lac operon]

4 Hard Computer Science

What exactly does "hard computer science" entail? Presumably tossups on Half-Life don't count, and presumably stuff like flip-flops do, but what about a tossup on, like, C++? Or PSPACE? Or Turing machines? Or von Neumann architecture?

(I'm definitely interested, especially if this ever gets mirrored somewhere closer to me than Chicago.)

[The Toad to Wigan Pier]

4 Hard Computer Science

What exactly does "hard computer science" entail? Presumably tossups on Half-Life don't count, and presumably stuff like flip-flops do, but what about a tossup on, like, C++? Or PSPACE? Or Turing machines? Or von Neumann architecture?

(I'm definitely interested, especially if this ever gets mirrored somewhere closer to me than Chicago.)

Flip-Flops would fall under Computer Technology or Miscellaneous Technology. C++, PSPACE, Turing Machines, von Neumann arch are all things that would fall under my view of "Computer Science", but only PSPACE would I consider to be "hard".

[Fond du lac operon]

Ah, so hard as in "hard tournament," rather than "hardware" or "hard science fiction."

My interest is climbing even further in that case.

[The Quest for the Historical Mukherjesus]

I would enjoy having someone carry me through this tournament.

[Charbroil]

I'd like to play this.

[Quantum Mushroom Billiard Hat]

This sounds fun.

[SnookerUSF]

Yes...please.

[MathMusic]

I'd be in, if this is mirrored near us.

[theMoMA]

This happened and was fun.

We ran a modified singles format in which the field split into two rooms of eight (top) and nine (bottom) after a 40-question seeding round. After each 40 questions, the top four players in the top room stayed, and the top four players in the bottom room were promoted, with the bottom four in the top room being relegated. The final standings reflect the total aggregate scores in the top room over 160 questions.

The final ranking was:

1. Jerry Vinokurov: 3-21 (255)
2. Andrew Hart: 1-20 (215)
3. Ike Jose: 4-8 (140)
4. Rob Carson: 1-12 (135)
5. Ashvin Srivatsa: 1-9 (105)
6. Trevor Davis: 2-6 (90)
7. Sam Bailey: 1-3 (45)
8. Bernadette Spencer: 0-4 (40)
9. Bryan Berend: 0-3 (30)
10. Matt Hayes: 0-2 (20)
10. Steve Oppenheim: 0-2 (20)
12. Alex Gerten: 0-1 (10)
12. Drew Scheeler: 0-1 (10)
12. Sinan Ulusoy: 0-1 (10)

Thanks to Ryan Westbrook and Mike Cheyne for reading and to Will for an exciting tournament.

[Cheynem]

These questions seemed like much fun although I would say for the benefit of the poor readers, the questions at times seemed excessively long--obviously side events should get a little leeway, but massive questions which arguably only one or two people in any given field will get did not always seem like the best idea. That said, there were all kinds of exciting clues and I had fun reading it.

Round five's tiebreaker has an erroneous clue that can be pretty easily corrected if one looks at the question before reading it.

[The Toad to Wigan Pier]

These questions seemed like much fun although I would say for the benefit of the poor readers, the questions at times seemed excessively long--obviously side events should get a little leeway, but massive questions which arguably only one or two people in any given field will get did not always seem like the best idea. That said, there were all kinds of exciting clues and I had fun reading it.

Round five's tiebreaker has an erroneous clue that can be pretty easily corrected if one looks at the question before reading it.

Oops, I see what you mean about that tiebreaker, that's kind of embarrassing. I think I had another question on my mind when I wrote that tiebreaker. Yeah, I admit these questions are way too long. Sorry, about both of those things.

[Excelsior (smack)]

This was quite possibly the most enjoyable quizbowl-related thing I've played all year. Many thanks to Will for writing this set.

[grapesmoker]

It seems remiss of me to not say that this was easily the most entertaining side event I've ever played.