Search This Blog

Yesteryear

Sunday, October 28, 2012

October 28, 2012

           Here’s that new puzzle I’m beginning to prefer to Sudoku. KenKen involves more logic, in that the key is the relationship between numbers. This is the third puzzle I’ve tried (this solution is wrong). While Sudoku would work with any set of symbols, this puzzle is dependent on the four basic arithmetic operands. Any similarity to Sudoku is superficial except for the rule of one unique number per each row and column.
           As can be seen by my corrections, it is possible to make mistakes and carry on. The error today is in the third column. I’ve noticed KenKen must begin with four single squares, shown here as 3, 6, 5, and 2, which you fill in right away. All results must be integers, so go to the rectangle at the top left corner where you see “3÷”. This means there are two numbers, that when divided, result in an answer of 3. That can only be a 6 and a 2. There is a 2 in the upper right corner, meaning the arrangement shown here is the correct one. (These puzzles quickly became a daily institution.)

           This morning’s club meeting had to wait until the afternoon. The bakery coffee machine was down again. I’m really easy to talk to before I’ve had my morning java as long as you don’t expect me to talk back. The scheduled topic was dating clubs and how to replace them with something that works. I remind readers this is a think tank, it is absolutely hypothetical with no obligation to do anything. One important category I neglected was the date line chats, oozing at the seams with society’s flotsam. You know, the porky women with 140 IQs and the seamy men who claim to read Playboy for the articles. OMG, I just described Surrey, BC.
           The biggest farce with dating clubs is having people profile themselves where the real world says that’s a clunker. Nor is that going to change. One solution would be to let other people do the profiling, but how? Like, who's judgment can you trust over your own over what a wonderful sense of humor you have? Is there any category where reality is not a factor, something where people can lie because it isn’t consciously false? Sure--let them describe what they want. That’s most of what people do all day long anyway and there is no way say a want isn't real. Invent something that causes other people to react to what you want. Then bottle it and sell it. If the above does not make wonderful sense, you are under-thinking the problem.
           Unable to find anything good at AMC, I watched Internet movies today. This was the summer of crappy movies. Same with the Internet, where I watched “The Light at the End of the World”, (1971). Low budget (an abandoned lighthouse, Mexican extras) and one of the last attempts to resurrect the corny acting of the 50s. Okay, I admit when I was a kid I actually thought Kirk Douglas and Yul Brynner were good actors. The best scenes were the storm breakers on the rocky coast. Here’s my favorite blooper from the film. Glance at the photo "really quickly". (It’s a glass of wine.)
           Trivia. The average man says 2,000 words per day. The average woman manages 7,100. In addition, I type another 2,109 words per day of which 1,504 are in this blog. And, the average man smiles 8 times a day compared to the average woman's 62 times. Then again, they've got a lot more to smile about. If the average woman would take me out to dinner in her car just to have sex with me, I'd work for 2/3 of her salary. And I wouldn't bitch and moan about it afterward.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Return Home
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++