BS: Pseudobabble 101

Subject: Pseudobabble 101
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 01:12 AM

From New Scientist mag, offered for your amusement:

SADLY, we could run examples of dubious product claims every week. We decided not to do it for a while--but the Mobile Phone Protector to be found in the Tech & Electronics section of www.gifts4all.co.uk is described in such utter gibberish that it can't go unrecorded.

Here's what it says: "It is clear that a new form of protection is needed against the adverse non- thermal influences of emissions from mobile phones. This Tecno AO provides protection in the form of electromagnetic biocompatibilty. This new tiny device, can be attached to the outside of most mobile phones. It works in 2 ways: 1 it maintains the integrity of the biological alpha rhythm: 2 Its magnetic signal helps to maintain ion protein links. In effect the mobile protectors ultra low magnetic induction intensity provides a coherent, continuous and corrective signal which compensates for the electromagnetic field of mobile phones."

If anyone can tell us what that's supposed to mean, we'll be glad to hear from them. Until then, we'll stick to our view that it's total nonsense and wonder whatever happened to Britain's Trades Description Act.

OH, AND while we're on the subject of pseudoscientific gobbledegook, the Global Mind Sleep Booster featured in a novelty catalogue seen by reader Alan Craig "provides a homeopathic-strength field similar to that emitted by the planets". This, apparently, helps establish a "natural balance" when we are "assaulted by surplus electromagnetic waves from, for example, bedside lamps, television sets or even alarm clocks". It costs £49.50 for those who choose to believe such tosh.

Just in case you thought there was no pseudoscience out there!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: reggie miles
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 03:26 AM

That's hypochemically and inductomatically bospererous fractuation. Furthermore the magnivelocitude of the incredentiousness remoulanded prepostulationarily is portentiantically torentatious.

Pseudobabbiliciously yours, dockter o' thimkolageen

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: AliUK
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 08:03 AM

In these fractisiously hydrochronical days, language accesibility depends on your perceptional qualities, especially when you consider the iconographic expectability of any aural receiving equipment. My personal dichotomising is based on a dodecahedroness in the plurality of micro-cosmic waves that tend to block the magnamicity of onduously produced emmissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 08:31 AM

Scary - I was at a theoretical archaeology conference last year, and all the speakers ('cept me of course! *g*) sounded exactly like that. Worse still, they stood up and read their papers, word for word, rather than giving a presentation.
I played buzzword bingo - a tick for every piece of jargon. Embarrassingly, I left my notes behind and one of the organisers posted them to me later, no doubt having studied the long list of words and ticks and the heading "buzzword tally" at the top... there goes what's left of my reputation.
My choice title for next year is "The dichotomy of the paradigm: rectifying the anomaly".

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 08:52 AM

The Dichotomy of the Paradigm: Rectifying the Anomaly

By Fibula Mattock

Oh, Fibula, that sounds sooooo INTERESTING!! Can we get a read-ahead -- maybe some PowerPoint slides??? I have a STRONG interest in this subject...um...at least, I think I do...or perhaps just believe I am supposed to....but it SEEMS very interesting....but I am not sure I understand...well..hmm....oh, skip it!!

LOL!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: MMario
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 09:03 AM

I think it should be re-written as a musical comedy.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 09:15 AM

I have everything I need, with my tinfoil helmet.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: RichM
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 09:16 AM

Hey, these examples aren't pseudobabble--they're real babble!

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 09:20 AM

Perhaps a Gilbert and Sullivan style operetta?
< sing >
"I am the very model of a modern major paradigm"
< / sing >

Amos, how about those powerpoint slides that have flying bullet points zooming in from each side? I could ask that nice Microsoft paperclip to help me. And maybe some humourous clip art? Tasteful.

I'm just reading a paper that contains the sentence "The agent entities and the users are today two macrocosms disjoined or casually integrated." Eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Peg
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 10:30 AM

I remember once years ago when I was in college, I was visiting Cambridge and was walking on Brattle Street in the evening, and ended up behind two guys who had just seen Arthur Kopit's play "The End of the World." One of them said "Well obviously, this is just an exposition of cognitive dissonance."

That was the first time I realized that people will willingly obfuscate and confound with false erudition and pseudo-intellectual babble. Now that I live closer to Cambridge I hear this sort of thing all the time!

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Blackcatter
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 10:46 AM

O.K. Fibula, I'll bite,

What the heck is "theoretical archaeology?" To me, if any scientific field should be grounded in the dirt it should be archaeology. Do yall theorize on undiscovered lost civilizations? Is this the epicenter of Leumrian investigation?

pax yall

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: GUEST, Dan Kelly
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 11:03 AM

A few years ago, I saw the winning entries of a competition for bad writing, the candidates being culled from Ph.D theses in philosophy. I've never encountered it again, and I wish I could find it. It was perhaps the funniest thing I ever read.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 11:07 AM

Paradigm intersection, in the final analysis, is a resolution of disjoint memetic field structures generating cognitive dissonance and then surrendering to entropic reformulation of isolate or semi-isolate solitons of information. The problem with this natural sequence of states lies in the dissolution of the paradigmatic boundary layer, with its concomitant ambiguity of nomenclature and reality-matrix referents.

This should clarify the problem nicely. Anyone know where I can get paid for talking like that? I'm interested!!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 11:15 AM

oooh, Dan, please search for that one!

Blackcatter - it was my first theoretical archaeology conference - I usually go to the "what-I-dug-in-my-summer-holidays" ones where people describe 50 similar postholes in different (and alledgedly meaningful) ways. This conference was short on field archaeologists. This one had academics!They used a lot of words like "phenomenology" and "epistemology" which I took to be a supposedly intellectual way of saying "we analysis things and their sources". It seemed to mostly comprise of telling people that everything they knew was wrong because there was a more elaborate way of looking at things. I suppose it depends on perspective. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Pseudolus
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 11:18 AM

I hate to be paranoid but for a minute I thought y'all were talking about my posts!!!!!! *BG*

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: MMario
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 11:22 AM

Amos - Could you elucidate? I am having trouble comprehending the phrase "The problem with this". the remainder of your statement appears to be concise and to the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: rangeroger
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 11:27 AM

Paid? Hell Amos, you can't even get laid, talking like that.

rr

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: irishajo
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 05:04 PM

This might be what Dan was talking about...seems like I read it or something similar before.

Philosophy and Literature announces Winners of the Fourth Bad Writing Contest (1998)

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Sorcha
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 05:57 PM

I am having a difficult time fully investing in the trust issue regarding theoretical archaeology. Isn't that what Little Hawk does so well?

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 06:16 PM

Here's a DIY guide on how to learn to write like that.

Ten easy stages to get from "We quit because nobody knew how to program the computer" to "Due to unavoidable uncertainties in the status of the computer program assessment planning development effort, a number of contingency proposals were carefully considered and one was tentatively adopted to suspend on a temporary basis until a later date those project processes deemed unessential to the expeditious fulfillment of contract requirements."

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 07:12 PM

I thought mine was pretty good for an off the cuff try and incomprehensibility, but I have been humbled by the rude shoulders of giants!! Witness the following work of fathomless complexity and density freom the above-cited site, which you should keep in sight, if not inside:

Finally, a tour de force from a 1996 book published by the State University of New York Press. It was located by M.J. Devaney, an editor at the University of Nebraska Press. The author is D.G. Leahy, writing in Foundation: Matter the Body Itself.

Total presence breaks on the univocal predication of the exterior absolute the absolute existent (of that of which it is not possible to univocally predicate an outside, while the equivocal predication of the outside of the absolute exterior is possible of that of which the reality so predicated is not the reality, viz., of the dark/of the self, the identity of which is not outside the absolute identity of the outside, which is to say that the equivocal predication of identity is possible of the self-identity which is not identity, while identity is univocally predicated of the limit to the darkness, of the limit of the reality of the self). This is the real exteriority of the absolute outside: the reality of the absolutely unconditioned absolute outside univocally predicated of the dark: the light univocally predicated of the darkness: the shining of the light univocally predicated of the limit of the darkness: actuality univocally predicated of the other of self-identity: existence univocally predicated of the absolutely unconditioned other of the self. The precision of the shining of the light breaking the dark is the other-identity of the light. The precision of the absolutely minimum transcendence of the dark is the light itself/the absolutely unconditioned exteriority of existence for the first time/the absolutely facial identity of existence/the proportion of the new creation sans depth/the light itself ex nihilo: the dark itself univocally identified, i.e., not self-identity identity itself equivocally, not the dark itself equivocally, in "self-alienation," not "self-identity, itself in self-alienation" "released" in and by "otherness," and "actual other," "itself," not the abysmal inversion of the light, the reality of the darkness equivocally, absolute identity equivocally predicated of the self/selfhood equivocally predicated of the dark (the reality of this darkness the other-self-covering of identity which is the identification person-self).

Dr. Devaney calls this book "absolutely, unequivocally incomprehensible." While she has supplied further extended quotations to prove her point, this seems to be enough.

Phew!!

I think I have grown hair on the inside of my brain!! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 07:27 PM

Wow. I feel so underbrained around here. ;D

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 08:22 PM

If I knew what Leahy was on when writing that, I'd make a point of avoiding it...

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 08:29 PM

Erudite expositions of elegant elucidation?--or egregious, extraneous effluent? Eschew excruciating epistemological error!

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: little john cameron
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 11:39 PM

Weel ah think it is bloody marvellous.ljc

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: heric
Date: 28 Mar 02 - 11:46 PM

irishajo: That's great! I was convinced you had found it; and 1998 seems about the right time. However, upon reading it all, I actually don't think it's the same one. I'm fairly confident that the one I saw, though very much like that, had a lot more "ontologicals" in it.

At about the same time, someone came out with a study about nuns. They found they could predict the likelihood that a nun would exhibit alzheimer's later in life, by analyzing the sentence structure of their writing in early adulthood. Now the weird thing is that the ones who were not likely to get alzheimerss were the ones with the "densest" sentences. That is, the ones with the most thoughts jammed into a single sentence. The grand prize winning sentence was comparable to what we've discussed above. Now, I'm not a nun, but when I read this I was a little pissed off at my college writing instructors.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: heric
Date: 29 Mar 02 - 12:11 AM

"As my story is an august tale of fathers and sons, real and imagined, the biography here will fitfully attend to the putative traces in Manet's work of "les noms du père," a Lacanian romance of the errant paternal phallus ("Les Non-dupes errent"), a revised Freudian novella of the inferential dynamic of paternity which annihilates (and hence enculturates) through the deferred introduction of the third term of insemination the phenomenologically irreducible dyad of the mother and child."

You know what? I am almost certain that this is what a priest once said to me, when I was younger. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 02 - 03:43 PM

I know you can just go to google and enter "bad writing contest" (which I just did), but this 1994 first place winner is really worth a look: ---------------- First prize goes to David Spurrett of the University of Natal in South Africa. He found this marvelous sentence-yes, it's but one sentence-in Roy Bhaskar's Plato etc: The Problems of Philosophy and Their Resolution (Verso, 1994):

"Indeed dialectical critical realism may be seen under the aspect of Foucauldian strategic reversal-of the unholy trinity of Parmenidean/Platonic/Aristotelean provenance; of the Cartesian-Lockean-Humean-Kantian paradigm, of foundationalisms (in practice, fideistic foundationalisms) and irrationalisms (in practice, capricious exercises of the will-to-power or some other ideologically and/or psycho-somatically buried source) new and old alike; of the primordial failing of western philosophy, ontological monovalence, and its close ally, the epistemic fallacy with its ontic dual; of the analytic problematic laid down by Plato, which Hegel served only to replicate in his actualist monovalent analytic reinstatement in transfigurative reconciling dialectical connection, while in his hubristic claims for absolute idealism he inaugurated the Comtean, Kierkegaardian and Nietzschean eclipses of reason, replicating the fundaments of positivism through its transmutation route to the superidealism of a Baudrillard."

It's a splendid bit of prose and I'm certain many of us will now attempt to read it aloud without taking a breath. The jacket blurb, incidentally, informs us that this is the author's "most accessible book to date." ---------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 02 - 03:53 PM

I'm sorry, I just can't help myself. I've decided you are right irishajo, but it was this second installment of the awards that I remembered:

http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/psn/jun96/0092.html

(There's even a sentence about Tonya and Nancy: " . . . this melodrama parsed the transgressive hybridity of un-narrativized representative bodies back into recognizable heterovisual codes.")

Man, I'm getting tingly all over.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Kim C
Date: 29 Mar 02 - 04:12 PM

Oh, lordymama.......... The implications of the sociopolitical juxtapositions are undeniably staggering.............

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 29 Mar 02 - 04:37 PM

Sorry, I can't remember where I heard it, to credit the author, but:

  The sea squirt is a small marine crustacean.
  When hatched, it has a rudimentary brain.
  The brain helps it, as it floats about on the currents of the sea, to seek out a suitable place to anchor itself.
  Once it finds a safe place to anchor, and forms its shell, it no longer needs its brains - so it eats it.
  Sort of like getting tenure.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: MarkS
Date: 29 Mar 02 - 05:17 PM

This thread is the best argument yet for illiteracy.
Sigh
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 02 - 05:39 PM

Sorcha - You are absolutely right! However, Amos is the true and final master of psuedobabble. I bow to him in speechless humility! (till I can catch my breath, anyway...)

Amos - We have a paying job for you at the WSSBA. You can lecture on the deeper meanings of Shatner's multi-leveled style of acting, as demonstrated in the original Star Trek series and its follow-ups, and in fact in every dramatic series in which the Great Man has appeared.

Yes, it's a paying job! Admittedly it doesn't pay much right now...but...as our great educational institution grows, expands its current perameters, and ventures boldly into whole new paradyms of teleological discourse and analysis, underpinning the by no means insignificant effect of the "Shatner Method" on post-millennial societal structures and mores, it is my firm belief that even the most sanguine of forecasts regarding the pecuniary advancement forseeable in regards to your presumed position here would, in fact, be no less than a hypothetical certainty, given the enduring resonance and impermeable nature of William Shatner's career, his good taste, and his ripped T-shirts. It is no exagerration to say that Crassus would have been envious of this opportunity, as would Cato. Dubya would kill for such a position (if his handlers told him to).

Alas, truly effective and congruently comprehensive mentalizing of such programs is becoming quite a rare item in the contemporary cultural dynamic. Verbing hyperbolically while yet maintaining timely and appropriate spatial accuracy is becoming a technique almost unknown these days, even in the halls of higher knowledge.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Genie
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 03:37 PM

Rich M.,
Thou hast extracted the units of semantic communication directly from the oral cavity belonging to me, myself!

Genie
§;-)
 
 
 
 
 

Dan,
Re being "pissed off at college writing instructors,"  I'm reminded of a time when I was in grad school [a few decades ago] collaborating with 2 profs on sending a study we had done to a journal for publication.  We were laughing at what we thought [correctly, I believe] was the prevailaing linguistic style requirement to get a "scientific" study published.  So, while chuckling, we reluctantly changed statements such as "The baby lay on its back looking at the stabile," to "The supine subject's gaze fixated the stationary visual stimulus."  [OK, maybe the final sentence we agreed on wasn't quite that bad, but we all acknowledged that the rule per journal edictors was "Never use a short word when a longer one will do." and the corollary was "Never use an Anglo-Saxon derived word when a Greek- or Latin-derived word is available.]

From the link that irishajo posted, I can at least HOPE that standards are changing.  [Amos, that first sentence in the excerpt you posted was about 112 words!]

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Wincing Devil
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 03:58 PM

Here's a interesting page:

Today's Lecture Topic

There are several sites on the net where you can find "Buzzword Bingo" checkoff lists. They make meetings a little more tolerable.

And Always remember: In promulgating esoteric cogitations, and articulating superficial sentimentalities and philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosity. Let your statements and dissertations possess a clarified, lucid, conciseness, a compacted comprehensibleness, a coalescent consistency and a concentrated cogency. Let your extemporaneous descartings and unpremeditated expatiations have veracious veracity, without rodomontade or thrasonical bombast. Sedulously avoid all polysylabic profundity, psettatious vacuity, ventriloquial verbosity and vandiloquent vapidity. Eschew all flatulent garrulity, jejune babblement and idiotic affections. Shun prurient jocosity, pernicious, pestiferous profanity, contumacious eccentricity, innocuous ambiguities and preposterous apothetic imbecility.

WD

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Genie
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 05:56 PM

LOVE IT, you wincing devil, you!
 

   ^^
  (-  -)
    \/

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: kendall
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 07:38 PM

BALLDERDASH!

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 07:40 PM

WD, I am impressed. It is clear you have within you vast, uncharted shallows.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 07:59 PM

Oh! Well put, Amos... :-) Have you considered the job offer?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 08:10 PM

It is probably of paramount inportance, as we contemplate these exercises in the hyperextension of semantic structures beyond the identifiable boundaries of any intersections of postulated concretions, that we keep in mind the persuasive power on both sub- and supraliminal cognitive consturctions wielded by attributions of putative probability by the promulgators. The extension of ordinary conviction by self-oriented feedback loops of its language sets and connotative emotive meme-tokens has developed far beyond the ability of any average observer to extrapolate a reliable index of probability for a given import with any useable degree of confidence. The compensatory mechanisms for this evolution in our politico-commercial signal systems, whether public or local, are of great interest and worthy of study.

The primary mapping of taxonomies to both material and emotive referents having been overwhelmed by maladaptive memetic corruption, a mechanism of second-order probability assessment has evolved in the cognitive armamenta of adaptively-oriented participants. This enables those of only average intelligence, equipped with adaptive cognitive methodologies centered on the second-order analysis approaches only partially understood even by the minds exercising them, to acheive orders of confidence in probability assessments several times higher that the results experienced by those participants not so equipped.

This becomes especially useful in countering the memetic distortions imposed by those whose prior disequilibria have placed them in the role of furthering semantic field mismapping and weighting distortions for real or imagined gain in local network influence exchanges, a form of commodity brokering known to have peculiar attraction to participants of unusually low profile in such attributes as self esteem and tolerance of variance.

A word to the wise, eh? :>))

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 09:13 PM

Poets and academics: Those who muddy their own waters in order to make them appear deep.

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 09:19 PM

LH:

PM me an offer in detail. I am meeting with my agent this week and we will glad to provide an appropriately obfuscatory rejoinder after due consideration!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 09:21 PM

LOL!!! More, Amos, more! You are the Idi Amin Dada of psuedobabble. Why you are not commanding a yearly income of at least 7 figures is beyond my comprehension...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 05:41 AM

Thought I'd throw this one in the mix - not just deliberate pseudobabble, but proof that there is humour in computer science:

TITLE: On Superpolylogarithmic Subexponential Functions

Announcing: Technical Report TRCS-91-17, University of Maryland Baltimore County. A preliminary version of this paper appeared in two parts in {\it SIGACT News}, {\bf 22}:1 (winter 1991), Whole Number~78, 65--73, and {\bf 22}:2 (spring 1991), Whole Number~79, 51--56.

Alan T. Sherman, Computer Science Department, University of Maryland, Baltimore, County Baltimore, Maryland 21228 and Institute for Advanced Computer Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, Maryland 20742

June 21, 1990 (revised April 1, 1991)

Abstract

A superpolylogarithmic subexponential function is any function that asymptotically grows faster than any polynomial of any logarithm but slower than any exponential. We present a recently discovered nineteenth-century manuscript about these functions, which in part because of their applications in cryptology, have received considerable attention in contemporary computer science research. Attributed to the little-known yet highly-suspect composer/mathematician Maria Poopings, the manuscript can be sung to the tune of "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" from the musical Mary Poppins. In addition, we prove three ridiculous facts about superpolylogarithmic subexponential functions. Using novel extensions to the popular DTIME notation from complexity theory, we also define the complexity class SuperPolyLog/SubExp, which consists of all languages that can be accepted within deterministic superpolylogarithmic subexponential time. We show that this class is notationally intractable in the sense that it cannot be conveniently described using existing terminology. Surprisingly, there is some scientific value in our notational novelties; moreover, students may find this paper helpful in learning about growth rates, asymptotic notations, cryptology, and reversible computation.

Keywords. Algorithms, asymptotic notation, complexity theory, cryptography, cryptology, DTIME, mathematical humor, Maria Poopings, Mary Poppins, musical computer science, reversible computation, Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, superpolylogarithmic subexponential functions, SuperPolyLog/SubExp.

---------------------- lyrics ----------------------------

Superpolylogarithmic Subexponential Functions (Sung to the tune of "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.")

Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay! Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay!

Superpolylogarithmic subexponential functions!
Faster than a polylog but slower than exponential.
Even though they're hard to say, they're truly quintessential.
Superpolylogarithmic subexponential functions!

Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay! Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay!

For Alice to send a message through to Bob when Eve's eavesdropping,
do use a trapdoor one-way function---not a one-key mapping.
First take a message x, let's say, and raise it to the e;
then mod it out by p times q but keep these secretly. Oh!

(Chorus)

Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay! Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay!

The process takes but poly-time and appears to be secure:
why even just a single bit is one over polylog pure.
Though Alice thinks that Eve must spend time at least exponential,
by using Lenstra's elliptic curves, Eve splits n subexponentially. Oh!

(Chorus)

Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay! Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay!

Most computations dissipate a lot of energy;
we remove the heat with water but there's a better strategy.
Since thermodynamics does not apply when info is not doomed,
the laws of physics don't require that power be consumed. Oh!

(Chorus)

Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay! Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay!

Now Bennett said in `73, to run a program P,
you simulate the program P, but do so reversibly.
The problem with this method is that space is exponential, so
trade off time to save on space---this really is essential! Oh!

(Chorus)

Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay! Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay!

Did you know if you invert one, you get a funtionential subexporithmic logapolyrepus? But that's quite a singularity! So,

If you are in an oral exam and cannot find the way,
just summon up these words and then you've got a lot to say.
But better use them carefully or you could fail the test.
A professor once asked me, "What do you call functions that grow faster than any polylogarithm but slower than exponential?
"They're...

Superpolylogarithmic subexponential functions!
Superpolylogarithmic subexponential functions!
Superpolylogarithmic subexponential functions!
Superpolylogarithmic subexponential functions!

end of lyrics

Note: See paper for detailed performance notes and mathematical proofs by anagramming.

(You can read the full paper - a work of genius - online. Try here for a text version.)

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Genie
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 03:24 PM

The scary thing, Amos, is that I kinda understood your last post!. I think.

LOL!

Genie

Fibula, I think we should see if we can get Superpolylogarithmic Subexponential Functions! added to the DT!

§;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: Kim C
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 04:34 PM

Platitudinous ponderosity!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 05:25 AM

Last night I awoke from heavy dreams and walked out to my vechicle. I got in and drove to the lavender compound. Inside the kitchen b. was cooking peanut butter cookies, the kind with m&ms in them. He had made piles of cookies. They were stacked all over the kitchen. We talked about the finer points of baking cookies with m&ms in them when he said, "It is much more fun to make cookies with you than with those girls." I thanked him for the compliment and we left the kitchen to go out to the practice facility. I noticed D. had taken out his garden box and fenced in a basketball hoop, the portable kind. As we approached the facility I observed that they had replaced the structure with a lean-to. We passed through the door, made of a bear skin, and I sat down as they started to play. They weren't quite clicking so E. decided they needed to do "the circle of rhythm" exercise. They all started gyrating to a beat stomped out by all the members. I decided it was time for me to go so I reminded B. that he still had cookies in the oven and left through the bear skin door. I got into my vehicle and took off down Foster. I noticed that I was achieving speeds I had not thought possible for my little four banger. I tried to apply the breaks but that didn't work. Instead of passing the slower cars ahead I began to pass through them. I was going at a ridculous speed now. A turn approached. I. . .

Subject: RE: BS: Pseudobabble 101
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 04:23 AM

Let us stear this thread back towards music and stay within the topic. You can hear psychobabble "trance" music (rave) at the following: http://www.ptrance.com/