The above text says: "Developing partnerships that are anything but C++."  It was plastered with three other 'pithy' slogans and a Sony logo with 'Live in your world, develop in ours.'

There are a number of problems with it:

1. It isn't a double entendre.  I'm not sure if it even has a single entendre in it.  Let's explain:
   1. There is no concept of 'partnership' in C++.
   2. The closest idea in C++ is that it is a strongly typed language.  This means that code written in the language is checked to make sure that it knows, ahead of time, that the it accesses objects in valid ways.
   3. As such, maybe it means that Sony's partnerships don't have to be explicit up-front, but can change whenever?  Is that a good thing?
2. I asked a lot of people about it, even folks at a Sony booth.  A few guesses were that 'C++' == 'complex'.  That's silly:
   1. There are for more complex languages than C++.
   2. In fact, to get optimum performance out of Sony's PS2, a developer was forced to make use of assembly.
   3. As such, maybe it means that Sony's partnerships are needlessly complex?  That you still aren't able to use something as standard as C++?  [it's only the language that the majority of programmers, working in game-development, know*]  Is that a good thing?
3. It's not grammatically correct.  Let's examine:
   1. It seems to imply a 'Sony is' at the front.  'Sony is developing partnerships' is a fine sentence.  'Developing partnerships' is referring to the implied part.
   2. 'that are anything by C++' is referring to the 'partnerships that are being developed'.  However, we never really got the benefit of a punctuation mark to help us along.
   3. As such, it can mean only one thing: it's my good friend Dangling Participle!!!!  (oh snap!)  So 'Sony is anything but C++'.  What would that mean?  Is that a good thing?

So I still don't know what Sony meant by it.  However, I think that they likely meant to say one of the following:

1. Partnerships that are awesome.
2. Let's develop a partnership!
3. "Hello Partnership"
4. Let's partner up -- you can use C++ and we'll both make a bunch of money.

Now if they still wanted to insult themselves with the C++ remark, then:
"Partnerships don't have to be C++"

It still doesn't have a second entendre in it, but whatever.

* This is a statistic, so it has to be true.  Java and C# are heavily derived from C++, so I guess I'm assuming that the combination of (C#, Java, and C++) > (Visual Basic and Assembly) in the realm of game development.  I'm limiting the programmers to game developers since it was at the Game Developers Conference.

Updated: Replaced my mobile phone's text with actually commentary.

There are two things that will never make sense, no matter how hard one tries. As rational, intelligent people, it'd be best if we could accept this and move on. Leave well-enough alone, and all that malarkey. (I like the word malarkey, but I'm not entirely positive about what it means)

1. Women

Let's face it, no one is ever going to figure them out. They just aren't. End of story! Game over, man! Game over!

It's not like women are 5D square -- this is the common assumption many people make. 5d squares are difficult to comprehend, but there are mathematical formulas that *might* explain them.

If you don't know what a 5D square is, then let me explain:

• There aren't 1D squares -- I think. Well, let's assume there aren't.
• A 2D square is a square. If you don't know what one is then stop reading and go take your medication.
• A 3D square is a cube. The best way of thinking about it is that each side of a 2d square becomes it's own square!
• A 4D square is a hypercube. No rational human being can hope to understand it without getting a headache, but the best way of thinking about it -- although you shouldn't try, I'm warning you, you're mind will fart -- is that it's a cube where each side is a cube. Ach!
• A 5D square is a ??!? I actually have no idea. I imagine it'd have to be a 4D square where each side is even more painful to think about.

Don't get me wrong, women are awesome. If it were up to me, I'd treat them like Pokemon.

If you don't know what a woman is, then let me explain:

• They are intelligent, sentient creatures that would be better off without us men.
• The have a number of special abilities:
  • Once a month they can bleed without dying.
  • Living creatures will grow inside them if they mess up and forget to take their pills.
  • They're beautiful to look at, but, like a museum, you shouldn't touch.
  • They smell nice.
• Keira Knightley is their leader.

Women are awesome, but they aren't NP-Complete.

No, NP-Complete has nothing to do with World of Warcraft. Why do I have to explain everything to you this post? I haven't even gotten to what I want to talk about -- I hadn't even planned on discussing women or mathematics or whatever it is I’m talking about right now. Golly!

Anyway, if you don't know what NPC is, then let me explain:

• NPC stands for Nondeterministic Polynomial time Complete. It's a set of problems that mathematicians haven't figured out the difficulty of.

Basically, all I was trying to say is that there is a better chance we'll be able to determine the complexity of NP-Complete problems than we have of figuring out the first thing about women. At least, we'll mathematically figure out more about NP-Complete problems than we will mathematically figure out about women.

2. The Big Bang Theory

If you don't know what the Big Bang Theory is, then let me explain:

The theory states that X-jillian years ago all matter in the universe was in a single point and then exploded out (aka in a Big Bang).

Well, the problem is not the theory itself -- that's pretty well understood -- but the infallible belief that learned men and women have in it.

Normally, a theory should have an existence proof or, at the least, some supporting evidence behind it. Later, when contradictory evidence is found, the theory has to change or die.

The problem with the Big Bang Theory is that almost all evidence is contradictory. Scientists invent things like 'universe inflation' and stop trusting the speed of light -- at least when it doesn't suit their purposes. It's sad, because if anyone should be rational, it should be the learned men and women of science.

For a long time I have wondered how to convince these smart people to reject their ignorant ways. I thought that I might be able to understand why someone would need to believe something that seems so ludicrous, but there are too many questions. How could all matter be in the same place at the same time? How did it get there? What would cause it to leave? Was it bored?

I've come to three conclusions:

1. A lot of people have been misled. There shouldn't be any blame against these people. It's what we were taught in school.
2. People need to believe something. A person that doesn't have anything to believe in would be no better than a soulless automation built for killing and/or destruction.
3. You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose.

So I've come to accept that some people hold irrational beliefs about the 'Big Bang Theory', and they always will. To put it bluntly: If the sky opened, a messiah descended on the backs of winged horses, cured all disease, famine, and whatnot, and gave out a description of the origin of the universe that didn't involve a Big Bang -- the next day there would be a lot of scientists converting to atheism.

I just had a scary thought: a female scientist advocating the Big Bang Theory. Double mystery bonus time!