I wonder who the first person was who wrote a sentence that contained an aside - starting with an opening "(" - but forgot to close it with a ")". Do they not realize that they have relegated the rest of the future of the universe to an aside that never gets closure? Everything that happens after that first "(" is just a parenthetical of that first person's musings. And it's a regressive condition. (The next aside that someone makes that they forget to close is an aside within an aside. (God knows how many asides deep we are buried (in the centuries since that first unclosed one.))) The Universe will not end with a Big Freeze, a Big Rip or a Big Crunch; it will end with Syntax error: unexpected end of universe. Are you missing a ")"? Syntax error: unexpected end of universe. Are you missing a ")"? Syntax error: unexpected end of universe. Are you missing a ")"? To forestall this doom, I have started manually pumping out ")"s into the universe. There is no harm in an excess of ")"s - provided they don't have any more subsequent universe following them; they will simply be ignored (or maybe carried over to the next Big Bang for them to deal with). (Notice by the way, how I defuse my own "("s, mentioned here, by putting them in quotes. The quote means they are simply the display of a character, not a functional participator in my post.) But I realized quickly that this is only a stop gap. There could be someone out there pumping out opening "("s as fast, if not faster, than I could pump out closing ")"s. Or they might just have more free time than I. So I've written program that does nothing but churn out reams of ")"s. Now, I'm generating them even while I sleep. If I'm lucky, I'm the first one who was able to automate this process, so I've got a headstart on any evil-doers who try to thwart me with the the same tactic. As long as I can stay on top of the fastest computing systems, I should be able to keep pumping ")"s out faster than my "(" opponents. Of course, I'll have to keep updating the program every few years to keep ahead of the technology curve. But even that is stopgap, since the "("ers could always write "("-generator spawning programs (i.e. programs that generate more "(-generator" programs). I'll have to start writing ")"-generator spawning programs to keep up. And then there's the issue of recruiting others, to write ")"-generator spawning programs in parallel with my own spawning programs. Granted, it is a lonely row I hoe, but such is the cost of those who think ahead to see the big biiiiiiiiiiiiigggggg picture. P.S. If you're tempted to reply with just a ream of "("s, you can skip it. I'm already way ahead of you on the "()" technology curve. You'll never catch up, no matter how expert-level your keystroke-fu.