Thursday, November 13, 2014

Let's ban the number 3, it is unsafe and immoral

The arithmetic expert (AE) at the K-Landnews has long advocated banning the number 3, and raised the subject again this week when security experts found that it takes cyber criminals only three minutes to get the low-down of your web mail account.

The media reported, 3 minutes of rummaging through your mails is enough to start wreaking havoc on a user's life.

Abolishing the number 3 will benefit humankind enormously, said AE. For starters, 3 is dangerous beyond the three mythical minutes in your inbox. 3 is a preferred instrument of blackmail, as you recall from many motion pictures. You know, where a criminal threatens the good guys "I will ll count to three, and if you haven't dropped your guns by then, <add a threat of deadly action here>".

3 is also a time waster of epic proportions, as you understand if you love baseball. Three strikes, that's what slows down the game. The number of strikes hasn't changed in a century, and that's fine by your standards?
If Henry Ford had looked at baseball for inspiration, he would never have invented the assembly line, there would have been no Model T and no product placement of Ford SUVs in Jurassic Park.

People have died because of 3 strikes. Not just the justice system version of three strikes, but because of the baseball original. If anybody kept statistics on that, you'd find that many people caught a cold and worse in drafty baseball arenas in bad weather. They went home, got a fever, and died because they had no health insurance and spent the last of their money on baseball tickets.

Television changed this, it saved lives by keeping people at home, watching baseball protected from inclement or freezing weather. If television actually has healing properties, why is it not regulated by the FDA?

3 is bad in other areas, for example, how do you feel in a three-wheeled car? There us a reason why NASCAR and Formula 1 shy away from three wheeled race cars.

Even God, not known for great engineering of species, he went like, walking on three legs, are you kidding me. Look around!
No legs, fine, two, okay, then four or more, but three legs are not what the Lord thought optimal.

The trinity concept does not stand in the way of His insight at all. He knew, one of them would be killed, so it was really only two. He hasn't complained about us still talking Trinity because, after all, 3 kind of feels nicely mythical.

If safety, security, or productivity cannot convince you, there is a moral argument for getting rid of the number 3: threesomes.

Look on the Web, and you see it, threesomes have destroyed so many happy one-man-one-woman families! Read a few of the stories, you'll discover how people felt the attraction of the idea, again the mythical power of 3, and then found their marriages in ruins. For the curious, you may want to try foursomes. Even more fun, and if things go wrong you just move in with the other's partner, which may not be morally beyond reproach but sounds more acceptable than destruction by 3.

Now, our AE is aware that removing 3 from our lives from one day to the next is not easy and suggests a transition model using Harry Potter's train station. Platform 9 and three quarters worked for them, so we should start by replacing 3 with two and three quarters. You can expect some resistance from decimal freaks but the cultures that still use un-decimal systems like foot and gallon will be supportive.

The major obstacle to banning 3?

Computer users fear they will only get two log-in attempts before the box tells them to take a hike.

Give users four or five log-in attempts, and they won't miss the 3 for long.

Eggheads: Can you please do a study to see if increasing the number of log-ins reduces workplace altercations and increases workers health?

No comments:

Post a Comment