Useless articles

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 04:36, January 6, 2012 by PuppyOnTheRadio (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Uncyclopedia Puzzle Potato Notext
For those who are easily amused, Uncyclopedia has a totally unrelated article about: Blue-ringed octopus
For more Useless Articles, see Uncyclopedia

Useless articles can be found everywhere in the material and the spiritual realms. UA's can be concrete, abstract, granite, far fetched or closely related. Some you can obtain for free, for others you must pay dearly.

Useless articles can be very dangerous when nurtured, but are relatively harmless when left alone. A person spending too much time with too much UA's, might overdose, causing him or her to implode into a useless person, full of useless knowledge; his or her useless time spent on useless things and useless actions. These unfortunate people are likely to become politicians.

edit Whereabouts

As useless articles are everywhere, in streets, shops and peoples homes, on television and in all publications (electronic or otherwise), it is very hard not to become occupied with them.

Strangely enough:If you blow up a useless article, you sometimes get useful particles!

edit Origins

The origins of Useless Articles are lost in the mist of time.

Given that we denote time as t, n represents the entropy times the magnitude of the electric charge, and {x0, x1, ... xn} is a normalized partition of the non-trivial zeroes of the Riemann Zeta function; with Klinefelter's constant 2.00349850..., and with the Cauchy principal value of an integral: P ∫ ... dt, it is true that:

\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}n} \left ( 2.00349850 \ldots \times \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^n \ln (\sin k)}{\displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^n \ln (\cos k)}~~\frac{n}{\displaystyle \prod_{i=1}^n x_i}~~\mathrm{P}\int_{0}^{\displaystyle \sqrt{1-(x_1^2+x_2^2+\cdots +x_n^2)}}\sqrt{\Gamma (t)^{\left (\frac{1}{x_n}\right )}+\left (\mathrm{I~am~going~to~shit~all~over~this~joint}\right )^2}~\mathrm{d}t \right )

is equal to one (plus or minus ten).


QED

edit Philosophical history:

The philosophical attitudes towards useless articles range between

1: The negativistic standpoint: - All articles are useless,

2: The positivistic standpoint: - No article is useless,

3: The uninteristic standpoint: - Who cares?

We ourselves see it this way:

A hammer (for example) is a conglomerate of wood fibers and metal crystals. Wood fibers and metal crystals are conglomerates of ditto molecules. Ditto Molecules are conglomerates of atoms. Atoms are conglomerates of particles and particles (besides being the result of blown up articles), are conglomerates of ..... what? We don't know (yet). Ergo: If we don't even know what a hammer really is (yet), how can we make any statements (yet) about it's uselessness? At which point someone might object:

"But you know what a hammer (for example) is! You can see it, touch it, use it..." At which we will Sneer & Reply:

A hammer is something we perceive with our senses. But what is perception, what is knowledge? and above all: who or what is it that percieves, knows, uses? We don't know. It is a mystery. Then how can we say anything sensible about something like the usefulness of a hammer (for example)? We just don't know and we won't even be able to know it WHEN we know it.

The use of this argument often results in said hammer swiftly making contact with the arguer's head.

edit Why a hammer as an example?

Because:

If I had a hammer (for example),

I'd hammer in the morning

I'd hammer in the evening

All over this land.


This can also be confirmed analytically using Fermat's middle theorem:

\left ( \forall a: \exists \, \mathrm{cocks},~(x+y=ab^5)\equiv (\mathrm{cocks}\implies \nexists A : x,\, y \in A) \right ) \implies \nexists b : (a,b) \in \mathbb{R}^2~\and ~ab^5 \in \mathbb{R}

by substituting cocks with hammers and reversing the direction of the number line.


QED

edit Food for thought

- A hammer (for example) is very useful for bending nails and breaking things. Again, for a thousand other purposes (like sweeping the floor, kite flying or repairing your ipod,) it is totally useless. Does this imply that a hammer (for example) is 99,9% useless?

edit How to get rid of a UA

A: By means of the Holy Hand Grenade;

B: Stick your head in a hole in the UA & pretend it isn't there;

C: Give it as a present to your mother in law;

D: Put it up on Ebay.

edit Robert Mugabe

He writes haiku and appears VERY glum indeed.

edit Examples of UA's

1: The Pope's testicles;

2: A nun's cunt;

3: Windows 7 (we haven't learned how to use Vista yet);

4: Michael Jackson (has now become useful as food for the worms);

5: Chocolate Teapots

edit see also

Personal tools
projects