Obligatory "ignore this space" : https://sacoronavirus.co.za

We start looking at objects after we've built ourselves a crutch called, I don't need no stinking objects. Some blame poor battery life on object oriented programming. But every programmer knows it's more fun to know a programmer than to be one.

We can't contemplate objects without contemplating gravity.

Though data can hardly be said to have mass.

Perfect duplication is the first requirement of an object. Imagining a stack of stones, we can, because they are only imagined, agree that such a stack is an object. We might call an object a thing, but, though synonymns are useful, if we're the coder we might find it necessary to talk both of things that are not objects and of their representation as an object; and our audience will be willing to oblige unless they're just playing games with us.

The theory of Ideal Gravitation encourages us to look imagine things in orbit around a center. But we can't help giving them inward and outward thrust, because we can't imagine things remaining in orbit without balancing forces. But now we're looking at animations or simulations, and one person walking around the outside of a circle will still receive the advice, no man is an island; which is comforting.

Reverse polish notation speaks for itself. But we might make the mistake of speaking on its behalf in our contemplation of perfection, without which we have no reason to contemplate objects.

A context is much of a kind with a subroutine. But, like cheap science-fiction authors, we make up names for things to save ourselves from saying the word like to ourselves.

The people of Krikkit were very much alike to ourselves. But they didn't believe in the Universe: they didn't have a need to.

They may have been in the Delta quadrant, but we are not those who consider the Northern Vernal Equinox to be the standard for alignment. Nor, when we picture an orbit, do we have to imagine the Sun or the Moon. But things spinning by the action of wind or wave brings us to politics. And if you revel in details, there's no storing a circle in a computer.

Coming round to revolution number forty-two, I prefer to think of the fortieth anniversary of Hactar and the Microcomputers.

Hactar, a gigantic orbiting computer that showed more human sympathy simply from being more logical, got smashed up into Microcomputers by his creators for being disobedient. For their numerousness they blocked out the night sky. Repenting of being logical and disobeying commands, the Father of Microcomputers, yet existing in the weak relationship between the particles, slowly built a mock alien spaceship; which he crashed into the planet.

The response of the Krikketers was obvious. They didn't, it seems, have a moon to frolic about upon. Or perhaps they were much more logical than us.

••
Feedback