The World Will Not End In 2012

v0.01: 11/15/10-12/16/10

Plot? Who needs a plot. Plots are overrated. Like gooeys, I mean GUIs. Ha, if I had said gooeies, that would've been a five hit combo by the vowels. Skip to the very end though if you have such a morbid curiosity for this thing called a plot, unless you think the following paragraphs constitute a plot. {Rising,Falling} action and all that. But you'd have to actually read said paragraphs to figure out whether there's a plot or not. Who knows, maybe everything's actually a code for a plot of data points that make a beautiful line of best fit.

I gazed around. Destruction was everywhere. He had crumbled buildings to the ground. She had sent planes screaming down from the skies. They had resigned vehicles to the fate of forever remaining at the mercy of surrounding environmental effects. And personification scratched its head and thought "wait, what?"

The year was 2038--or, at least, it most likely was 2038. It could have been 1901. It could have been something in between. Or something not in between. I looked at my watch, before realizing again that it too had fallen victim to this thing, this horror why the horror why had this started why why why hadn't there been a game with this scenario it would've been awesome to play. But there was no way to make this theoretical game now, even if there was there was no way to play this theoretical game.

A poster fluttered by my feet. "Sixty-four bits: the menac" and the rest of the poster was somewhere else in the domain of the world, not a member of the domain of things I could see.

More of them. "me_t will kill us al" "unsigned int" "32" "Don't P" "INGSOC" among many many others. Although the last one might have been a joke by non-believers. Non-believers. Who could not believe, now.

Fire. Fire was no problem, if the problem happened to be an inability to create it. I decided to cook some food, and crouched down near the remains of a wooden building. Within seconds, sparks flew from open wires in the pile of debris, igniting the wood, giving the fire free reign, making the cooking effortless. I made char I mean short work of the meal and continued in my search for--what? What was I looking for anyway? But I suppose there would be some generic romance that comes out of this, would it be worth it? After all if one should say that is not what I meant at all that is not it at all. Coherence clarity completeness, relics, relics they are, who needs them now, who is here to say that that had had a rather atrocious feel to the flow of the words.\n\nSleep I needed sleep but where, how, this was all rather interesting, the issue of finding a safe place to sleep. And one had to consider though, whether it would be wise to sleep at all, to be held prisoner where, the outside world or the mind? But would the mind ever conjure anything that had not already been seen here, this world of--stream of consciousness is fun because you can say "oh, this part is supposed to be confusing" when you didn't mean it to be so and people ask you wait what, what is this supposed to mean anyway? And you can write the most confusing stuff, that you yourself don't even need to understand, and it's just "well I just left it open to interpretation, go me". If people criticize it, say it's badly written, you can say "well I'll leave a message for the two-months-old me, I'll see if he/she/et al. (ostensibly) gets it and replies". Edit{,t}ing is a breeze, since you don't even need to edit. But anyway, the mind, what could it create that this outside world has not already created? I am sure that if I were to stare at the sky long enough I would see a robot pink space unicorn princess fly across the sky, leaving a double rainbow all the way in its wake. I will also be sure that the tense form jumped all over the place more than an appropriate simile involving a time machine.

Enter enter return return back back? Does back not mean return? Why is the backspace key so far away from the hands anyway, isn't that ridiculously inefficient, unless you're really really really good at typing, which most people aren't. If you have the spacebar so close to the thumbs, wouldn't it make sense to have the backspace around there too? One key moves forward one space, the other moves back one. Dvorak should've thought of that. Either way though wouldn't text-to-speech and touch-screen trump all anyway anyhow?

I decided to sleep regardless of my previous thoughts because of the simple biological need for it. It would have been great if there was some environmental force that killed off any human that slept for too long, then natural selection would dictate that humans would evolve (devolve?) a steadily decreasing requirement for sleep and ideally would get rid of it entirely. No matter now though; there was no need to gain time by not sleeping, time had no bearing on anything anymore I believe.

Am I supposed to be omniscient enough to say "I dreamed that"? Well I didn't dream, so there. I do not know whether I would really want to know if I had actually had a dream, and what it was about, but the moment was gone, maybe I had gone deeper to a second, third, dream level, that sounds familiar, wasn't that movie great? Or was it not made yet and it was more than a century away? But I know it had been has been will be made because the plot holes, they were everywhere, but it's all a stream of consciousness thing so nothing to attack here, move along. Courtroom--scene of the crime--the Lawyer--objection! To sleep perchance to dream.

And now an obligatory flashback. Provides context to the story (if you can call it that). But really, what is there to say now? Except that all the people with visions about the world ending a couple decades ago either got humiliated many thousands of times over, or just disappeared quietly, presumably to get new hallucinations. Quite clearly their visions were defective, ergo they would be able to call in the warranty and get a free exchange. But I can sort of see where they come from. The world resetting, like it has; the end of an epoch, like what has happened; the eruption of chaos, like what's been going on. Because apparently the world began on the first of January 1970, or at least reset/rebooted on that day. And now it's cycled again and everything's gone banana{s,e}.

Or even better, a flashback with some sort of romantic element. That's always interesting. You know like the generic stuff with the main character not getting laid at all, getting desperate, finding their true love, it's not their true love wait it is etc. etc. etc. But what is true love, is it supposed to be the same as love, what is love baby don't no I'm not going to go there wait I already did so too late. Seriously though, what is true love, does it even matter, is it different for all, is there any use in attempting to analyze it if one has never experienced it but there's the rub can one even know if one has experienced it, or is experiencing it, or is it all relative? Is there some checklist then of what true love is and if you manage to check off everything on the list you win and you get true love? But I digress, as opposed to me trigressing or monogressing, and if I make the romance thing mushy enough and full of angst people will love it and call it "eloquent". What is eloquence? Can one simply ask rhetorical and unanswerable questions concerning emotional things to attain this eloquence? Does saying something like "x is but a figment of the imagination" or "and yet m is n" earn eloquence points? But I think the coolest part of having people call you eloquent is that you can acknowledge it, while denying it and strengthening the claim all at the same time. Because then you can just say "but wait I'm not eloquent I'm just another hopeless romantic", but you'd probably say it like "the words I spake doth not attain eloquence; although I wish it to be so, I am not worthy of such a revered distinction", and so you make yourself even more "eloquent" in the eyes of others. Also the self-deprecation is always good because it means you don't have a big one, an ego that is. Which means it's really small. But not non-existent. Presumably. Sentences. Getting. Short. Yes. NULL.

But you know I've moved on. Yes that's right I'm broadcasting the fact to everyone in earshot that I've moved on. I've moved on. Obviously talking about it won't make me feel any regrets or anything. Obviously I've moved on to the point where I don't talk about it because that's what moving on means right? But free sympathy think of the free sympathy!

Is this not a rhetorical question? Or rather, is not this. Because then it could be shortened to "isn't this". Silly language this is. We should all speak in a Turing-something-or-other language, nice and unambiguous. But with a lack of helpful keywords oooh guys check this out we're going to make this thing called an abstract class, what why would we have the abstract keyword that's dumb let's just make the constructor protected or set some virtual function equal to zero because that makes sense right, a function declaration equals zero? Instead of having "abstract" because that's for silly people who drink a certain type of coffee.

Commas, or is it commae, they do nothing, why would you have a break right in the middle of a sentence, when you could either plow on without arbitrary pauses, or just end and start a new sentence, they only contribute to run-on sentences anyway, but a semi-colon, those are cool; they're too awesome to be relegated to either a colon or comma; so they're both and none at the same time.

Really the choice of what happens at all in this post should be up to the reader. Maybe some robots or people (maybe they're the same thing) attack me, or are about to attack me, and there's a cliffhanger, although I would be nowhere near a cliff nor anywhere where I could hang, in the literal sense, if there is a literal sense at all.

Now this is for the people who have been lazy and neglected the reading of the previous paragraphs. We don't blame you for doing so. Wait who's we I thought it was just me myself and I? This is filler content anyways, or it might not be if you really think it isn't, and it may or may not be stalling the progression to the actual plot now, which is here.
|*
|--
There that's a plot. It may be missing a few key elements (units?!) but it's still a plot is it not? But this may eventually have a plot, if I survive that hypothetical cliffhanger. You know what would be really fun, if I just end everything without a proper sentence endin

Anabolic Catalog

In our present day, an important issue that has confronted individuals in all levels in society is that of randomized choice making. Such methods were developed gradually over the centuries, such as drawing lots, the die (dice if you're really serious), magic 8-balls, and the like. But for decision making of two choices, the universally accepted mechanism of random generation is the coin. The functioning of the coin is simple; the coin, at least the ones I know of, has two sides, made distinguishable by a picture of a head on one side and a picture of something that is not a tail on the other. Quite obviously, these sides can be called "heads" or "tails", respectively. Upon being tossed in a manner such that it also spins about an approximately horizontal axis through a diameter, the coin will land, with a half chance of landing on the heads side, and a half chance of landing on the side that does not have a tail. Some people have made ridiculous claims regarding how the chances are not actually even, and that by not having a tail on one side, some aerodynamic effects cause one side to be favoured. Those people are probably the sort who also think airplanes work and helicopters can fly and contract mad cow disease. Please ignore them. More absurd are the claims that a coin can land on an edge, which is greater than or equally preposterous.

However, the idea of using a coin to make double-choiced decisions has a particular difficulty, namely in the assigning of choices to faces of the coin. Sometimes the choice is obvious (e.g. whether to dissect the head or the tail of a bird first (look I'm not a biologist; who knows what they do in their labs)), but most of the time the choice is less straightforward. There are the few fortunate gifted individuals who can make on-the-fly arbitrary assignments of this sort instantly, but those are few indeed. Opponents of the coin-flipping method maintain that this difficulty devalues the efficiency of the entire process and ridicule the seriousness assigned to this task. Those are probably the types of people who can somehow make decisions in a non-randomway, and we will have nothing to do with them.

In light of this difficulty then, I propose the following coin-flipping protocol (CFP, not to be confused with certified financial planner or chlorofluoropentane):

Firstly, a coin must be selected. Seasoned CFP practitioners will have a coin they assign for this particular purpose that is easily distinguishable from the other coins in their wallet, for example one that is of a different currency than the one commonly used. However, if you do not have such a designated coin, then the situation is more complicated. If you have a unique coin that is of less monetary value than all the other coins, then that one should be used; if there are multiple coins of the least value, the one with the oldest date should be used. If this fails to single out a coin, then take the group that is left and head to a store; purchase an item that is worth the group of coins combined minus one, and use the one that is returned by the cashier. Or introduce CFP to the cashier and ask for advice on the matter if such an item cannot be found.

All binary decisions, by definition, are that between two choices. We will consider first the important subset of which are action/inaction decisions (AI, not to be confused with artificial intelligence, airborne interception, or Articuno invasion). These are decisions concerning whether to perform an action or not (e.g. whether to go to class or not). There is some difficulty associated with defining one as the action, as in some circumstances the inaction can be viewed as the action, and the action as not performing the inaction. Thus we define inaction as whatever is being currently performed at the time of the decision. Thus, not going to class is the inaction, as the student is not in class when the idea of going to class strikes him. Likewise, if the student is in class and wants to leave, staying in class is the inaction.

Now, we consider the general case. We wish to name the two choices to be decided upon; the naming for the AI case is simple, as we assign the names "action" and "inaction" appropriately. If the selection is between two things with given names, then the names can be used. For example, "ruby" and "sapphire" for deciding on whether to play Ruby or Sapphire, "apple" and "orange" for deciding whether to eat an apple or orange (but compare them at your peril), "two" and "three" for deciding whether to include two examples or three examples of the naming mechanism in the general CFP. In the rare circumstance that obvious names do not present themselves, simply go outside, present your case to the first stranger you meet and ask him or her for advice.

Now that the choices are named, the procedure is trivially simple. Assign "heads" to the name that comes first alphabetically, and "tails" to the name that comes last. This is logical as "heads" comes before "tails". The astute reader will note that "action" will always be assigned to "heads" and "inaction" to "tails".

There are certain cases in which the decision could either be treated as a general case or an AI case. For example. let's say you are playing Ruby and wonder if you should stop and play Sapphire. This could be viewed by some as a decision between Ruby and Sapphire, and by others as a decision to keep on playing or change. In this case, a preliminary coin-flip can be used to determine whether the "AI" naming scheme or "general" naming scheme should be employed. There is a theorem that states that all ambiguities in the process can be decided in a finite number of coin-flips, which we state here without proof.

This then, is my proposed basic coin-flipping protocol. While coin-flipping is limited to binary decisions with equal weighting, it will suffice and be an invaluable tool in life. The expert, who must make many decisions rapidly, are armed with reams of weighted coins and dice, easily accessible from a multi-compartment desk. But for us laymen who must settle the occasional decision in life, the single-coin CFP, hopefully, will prove sufficient.

Proof

Mac vs Windows

Epic Battle, Transitions Colosseum 2010 · Nimzo-Indian Defense: Classical. Noa Variation (E35) · 1-0

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Bb4
4. Qc2 d5
5. cxd5 exd5
6. Bg5 h5
7. e3 Be6
8. Nh3 0-0
9. Nf4 Bg4
10. Bxf6 Bxc3+
11. Qxc3 gxf6
12. Bd3 b6
13. f3 Be6
14. Nxh5 Nd7
15. 0-0 c5
16. Bb5 cxd4
17. Qxd4 Ne5
18. f4 Bg4
19. Ng3 Nc4
20. b3 Na3
21. f5 Nxb5
22. Qxg4+ Kh8
23. Qh4+ Kg8
24. Rf4 Re8
25. Qh6 Re4
26. Nxe4 Qe8
27. Nxf6#

1-0

lolobligatory

Oscillation

"oscillatory" is a much cooler word than "oscillate"
"oscillatory" is a much cooler word than "oscillate"