The Rule of Two
It all started a long time ago. From a dorm room window I looked down upon a construction worker spreading sand. In each hand was a rake. Not one rake but two! He went about his merry way clumsily spreading sand with dual rake action. On the edge of the sand area was another man with NO rake. One man barely able to handle two rakes and one man without any rakes at all. WTF?! I opened my window and screamed at the top of my lungs. "YOU DON'T NEED TWO!!! HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY!!! YOU DON'T NEED TWO!!!"
If both of these are on your belt, I'll smite you. These old shoes, while old, are a pair. One pen and another pen. Not two. Two beef jerkys? HAND ONE OVER!! Oh, wait.. My bad.. it's yours. I'm not touching this... Exception 4: Bulk Item Depletion.
After that happened, I began to realize that in most -- bullshit -- all cases, no one person needs two of anything. For always there is someone that doesn't have any. After drafting them over the next few years, I've developed what are known as the rules of two. Of course they have been disputed, for many cannot understand and are disbelievers. Screw you heretics.. read further.
The Rule of Two: You don't need two, some don't have any.Explanation: If you have two of something you shouldn't. Give one away. Get rid of this burden for it is not yours to carry. You need only one of anything.
I understand that this may seem vague at first, but don't lose heart, I will bring you to understand what is and what isn't two.
Exception 1: Pairs
Explanation: It's not two if they are matching pairs. Gloves, shoes, earrings, socks, are all examples of these. If you need to pair objects, you aren't in violation of having two.
Exception 2: One and One
Explanation: This is the blue pen / black pen principle. Having two of something is based on function not general design. It's ok to have one rip saw and one crosscut saw. It's ok to have a CD-ROM and a DVD-Burner. It's ok to have a dirtbike and a bicycle. If you have to similar but different objects, you aren't in violation of having two.
Exception 3: Parts of a Whole
Explanation: If I have an apple, and cut it in half, and some jerk says that I have two halfs, this jerk is wrong. I still have a single apple and am not breaking any laws at all. If you have two objects that used to be one object it isn't two. If you have two objects that might become one object it might actually be a pair so go back and read that part.
Notes on three or more. If you have 3 or more of the same thing, you probably need them. Like nails or dice or coat hangers or maybe even bullets. You would likely need a hefty supply of them. The rule of two does not extend to three or more. This phenomon is called Bulk Items. This also brings up a good point though.
Explanation: If you have 3 and lose one and now have two, nobody's going to scream about it. Take a box of nails.. Nobody's going to say, "You have two nails!" when you box nears emptyness. However bulk items are grouped by container, so if you have two boxes of nails I'm going to complain unless of course the boxes themselves are in bulk and then it would be by cases or something. As you can see, three or more is far too complicated and that's why we don't care.
Notes on Backups. Many people say, "But Jimbob, C'mon.. What about spare pencils & pens? What if I need two because I expect to use up one of them?" Gimme a break. I've heard just about enough of this shit. You non-believers can preach your backup crazy magic horseshit until the end of time and you'll just be as stupid as you are now. Backups?? BACKUPS?!! It's two. Plain and Simple. Some poor guy didn't have a pencil at all and you people are whining about not having extra. That's what the rule of two is all about!
I don't expect you all to turn over a new leaf at once. I would imagine it will be gradual. Ease yourselves into these rules like you are going from a cold pool into a hot tub. No reason to rush. Soon you will see two wherever you go and will say, "That's two.. and it shouldn't be."
posted by
@ 12:01 AM
|
12 Comments:
I wondered when one of us would post this. Well done, Jimbob.
dual tires on a semi truck. they are not pairs, as one can function without the other. they are not parts of a whole for the same reason. however both are needed to equalize the weight. they are similar to back up items but are more necessary. And you cant give one away to someone without causing major problems.
at least i think that was the arguement. its been awhile...
http://www.bloghub.com/Detailed/433.html
im nutz.
After careful review and thought on the matter of semi trucks I'm going to have to say that the rule of two applys to this matter in telling that they aren't two, but not quite why. I guess that can be argued.
I'll start with a trivial case and go from there. Bicycle tires are often considered a Pair. One front and one back attached by the frame of the bike. Cars are similar. The tires are still paired by way of an axle left to right, but there is now also a pair of axles, one front and one back.
Since we've already stated that the tires are required and not backups, the rule of two must cover it somehow. It all comes down to what kind of two person you are.
A rule of two liberal would say:
"The Quad tires are basically a pair of pairs where there are a pair of tires on each side of the axle. Basically I believe you are saying that is not a pair of pairs, but TWO pair where each side of the axle is not linked. But they are. If one fails the other will be stressed. Like walking with one rotting shoe on! It's better than no shoe, but not quite as good as a complete shoe."
A rule of two conservative would say:
"The quad tires clearly do not apply since it's four tires per axle, thus making the tires bulk items and no longer even up for discussion."
I don't believe the question is "Are they two?" it's now, "In what way are they not two?"
i think id have to agree with the liberal over the conservative. the rotting shoe explanation is good enough for me.
i'm just glad there was an exception made for pairs. the amount of surgery required to remove all my spare body parts would otherwise be very costly. not to mention the question of rather of not to alternate the sides from which these spares would have been removed or just look a bit lopsided. thankfully i was spared from having to make that decision by the exception rule of pairs. my insurance company thanks you jimbob.
im not an expert on the rules of two, but i think body parts are actually covered under "parts of a whole." Jimbob would have to clarify that though.
even if parts of a whole didn't cover them...they're certainly pairs. pair of shoes = pair of feet.
I too love having a pair of feet, hands, kidneys, eyes, ears, and lungs. I wouldn't dare ask people to give these up. However, I do know that in some extreme cases people have actually said.. "You don't need two kidneys, I don't have any." This is a bit more extreme than that kid in elementary school that used the same argument on my gloves once. It's still a pair and it's the users choice not to break them up. Congratulations Chewy. You are one step closer to the edge.
What about quadrapalegics and parapalegics? They could use a hand every now and then too (or is two?)...
sorry... 2 bad puns in one sentence... *slaps own face*
They already have hands. They simply choose not to use them.
not the ones where they dont work... the people who just plain dont have them.
Post a Comment
<< Home