(22 Sep 2003 at 18:36)
|Well, the theorem I've spent the last several weeks trying to prove turns out to be false, at least in an extention to the language that we want to support (products). I'm not sure if that rules (because it explains why I had difficulty proving it) or sucks (because it means I wasted a lot of time).|
To figure it out, let's resort to an old google trick, the sucks-rules-o-meter.
google search for 'cut admissibility is false rules': 5950 results
google search for 'cut admissibility is false sucks': 33 results
Well, it seems that most of the rest of the internet thinks that it rules. All right!! Thanks, internet!
|Hey, it turns out that I rules, by 990,000 to 113,000 vs. I sucks!|
|Come on now guys, SUCKS alone gets 4,940,000 results
RULES alone gets 50,800,000 results!
Everything is going to rule.
|Well, you're really supposed to do it in quotes, like "C++ sucks" or whatever. But I would have gotten no hits whatsoever.|
|Heather: I guess that shows how positive and cheerful everyone on the internet is! Ahhh, there is hope for society yet... Or maybe it demonstrates how authoritarian everyone on the internet is...
But alas, I redid "marc sucks" and "marc rules" in quotes and now my landside success has shrunken and narrowed greatly to 184 vs. 173. But practically all of the "marc sucks" ones are descriptions of porn movies, where I'm "sucks" on particular particular parts of other people's bodies. So I guess that's perhaps a problem with using words with multiple definitions that vary so much. And the first "marc rules" link is to the rule book for the Miniature Auto Racing Club...
|Ok, we should use "sux" and "rulez," "rox".
"marc rulez": 15
"marc rox": 11
"marc sux": 40
Not lookin' too good for you...
|You asked for it Tom...
"Tom rules": 654
"Tom rocks": 407
"Tom sucks": 2,620!!
Talking about not looking good...
|Gotta use "Tom 7", for which the internet is totally indifferent. Let me help.
Tom 7 rules
Tom 7 rocks
Tom 7 rox
Tom 7 rulez