[Re: asshole virus emailers]

[Matt Graham]

Sean <picasso@madflower.com> wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2001, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> 
> > Edward Glowacki <glowack2@msu.edu> writes:
> > > I guess really I could sum it up in one line:
> > > "All computer software sucks."
> >
> > You forgot the corollary: "All hardware sucks." [and other things
> > from the monastery's FAQ]
> 
> Cheap hardware sucks.

For M in E, where E is the set of all things which exist, E(M) sucks.  The
amount of suckage present, E(M(S)), varies widely[0] and in a manner that
cannot be reasonably approximated by a polynomial series or an arbitrary
combination of transcendental functions.[1]  However, it is my conjecture that
E(M(S)) is always greater than 0.  No known counterexample for this statement
exists, although certain persons, places, and things exhibit very low values
of S.  M. Wood theorized in 1997 that a perfect crystal of carbon at 0 K would
exhibit zero S as well,[2] but the theoretical underpinnings here are
incomplete.

Some researchers have made conjectures about the properties of N, the set of
all things which do not exist, but they usually gave up after a few hours and
just had a beer.

[0]  The procedure for measuring this quantity is a matter of some debate. 
There is general agreement on the units used (Ll, the Lovelace, and the
informal M$ unit, equivalent to 10^6 Ll) but there are no internationally
defined standards for observers to calibrate their suckage instruments
against.  Perhaps the relevant ISO committee can look into this.

[1]  Well, maybe not, but Maple core-dumped when I tried.

[2]  Journal of Irreproducible Results, Aug. 1997, "Simple Harmonic Motion in
the set of Spherical Cows", pp. 42-44

-- 
Matt G / Dances With Crows
There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
"I backed up my brain to tape, but tar says the tape contains no data...."