For the sake of brevity I assumed your interpreter would derive the meaning of "save the world" contextually and did not specify that I had in mind specific connotations not related to a strict, literal interpretation.
What if I just want to write code that doesn't make a difference in the world? Why does everything have to make a difference in the world? Isn't it enough that you experience pleasure from solving complicated problems?
Except it's not at all worthless and a big part of reality -- college admissions depend on it (as well as all the other mental, social and cultural benefits of succeeding in education), and it's strongly correlated with increased future earning potential.
Thanks for dehumanizing and belittling people who are good at something I guess?
Maybe you should talk to one of them sometime, I bet they'll have heard of this guy Aesop's story about a fox who really wanted to have some grapes but then didn't for some reason when he couldn't get them.
In many languages there's only one word for both doves and pigeons. In Dutch it's both duif, in German it's both Taube, in Japanese it's both hato, etc.
The American public can make even the basest effort in trying to understand the world for themselves and immediately grasp the complete irrelevance of perceived "warmth" when it comes to judging what is true and what is not.
Please, machine translation is still fucking terrible. Look at this:
Japanese: (denwaha kakattekitara moshimoshi surundayo) Google translate english: Telephone've got to Hello Once an incoming Real english: when the phone rings, you should say hello!
Holodeck: no Brain jack: no Spring-powered post-apocalypse: no Ubik: no Universal constructor robots named Trurl and Klapaucius: no Three laws of robotics: no Matrix: no Hyperdrive: no Warpdrive: no Smuggling software on cranially implanted usb sticks: no Lightsabers: no Triffids: no Ender's game: starcraft
Yes, the number one medical threat facing America right now is research scientists tipping smallpox down the drain. Not, I don't know, THE MASSIVE OVERUSE OF ANTIBIOTICS THAT WILL LITERALLY END IN A NEW FLESH EATING BACTERIA POWERED DARK AGE.
I am not saying that producing food locally is not a good idea, I am saying that no matter what science does, there will always be hunger, because of human nature.
It's a resource allocation problem. There is enough food on earth right now to sustainably feed everyone, the problem lies with the people on the path from the food to the hungry mouths. Increasing food production increases the wealth of the people in the middle, who now have more resources to allocate, but does not necessarily reduce the number of hungry people.
Slashdot Mirror
make that "change the world". I don't think anyone could save the world from a gamma ray burst.
For the sake of brevity I assumed your interpreter would derive the meaning of "save the world" contextually and did not specify that I had in mind specific connotations not related to a strict, literal interpretation.
I've never wanted to change the world. I've only ever been interested in understanding it.
What if I just want to write code that doesn't make a difference in the world? Why does everything have to make a difference in the world? Isn't it enough that you experience pleasure from solving complicated problems?
Except it's not at all worthless and a big part of reality -- college admissions depend on it (as well as all the other mental, social and cultural benefits of succeeding in education), and it's strongly correlated with increased future earning potential.
Thanks for dehumanizing and belittling people who are good at something I guess?
Maybe you should talk to one of them sometime, I bet they'll have heard of this guy Aesop's story about a fox who really wanted to have some grapes but then didn't for some reason when he couldn't get them.
Isn't that their whole ideology, that the world isn't fair?
The politics are in your mind, not in the game. You cant interpret what you dont notice.
Thanks folks, I'll be here all week.
"Think of the children" FUD does not trump them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
now we know: marketers. I wonder if Alan Moore's snake god already told him.
In many languages there's only one word for both doves and pigeons. In Dutch it's both duif, in German it's both Taube, in Japanese it's both hato, etc.
but that doesn't mean I can distinguish thai food from vietnamese food any way but linguistically.
But real scientists don't want respect, they want to know how the world works.
There is such a thing as a proven theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
And with a little less rigor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
The American public can make even the basest effort in trying to understand the world for themselves and immediately grasp the complete irrelevance of perceived "warmth" when it comes to judging what is true and what is not.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=high+freq...
Please, machine translation is still fucking terrible. Look at this:
Japanese: (denwaha kakattekitara moshimoshi surundayo)
Google translate english: Telephone've got to Hello Once an incoming
Real english: when the phone rings, you should say hello!
Holodeck: no
Brain jack: no
Spring-powered post-apocalypse: no
Ubik: no
Universal constructor robots named Trurl and Klapaucius: no
Three laws of robotics: no
Matrix: no
Hyperdrive: no
Warpdrive: no
Smuggling software on cranially implanted usb sticks: no
Lightsabers: no
Triffids: no
Ender's game: starcraft
No, "hunger" is perfectly fine to describe all those things. Just like "frozen" can describe water at 0 degrees and water at -273 degrees.
Yes, the number one medical threat facing America right now is research scientists tipping smallpox down the drain. Not, I don't know, THE MASSIVE OVERUSE OF ANTIBIOTICS THAT WILL LITERALLY END IN A NEW FLESH EATING BACTERIA POWERED DARK AGE.
I am not saying that producing food locally is not a good idea, I am saying that no matter what science does, there will always be hunger, because of human nature.
Your spending is also inelastic when you have nothing to spend.
It's a resource allocation problem. There is enough food on earth right now to sustainably feed everyone, the problem lies with the people on the path from the food to the hungry mouths. Increasing food production increases the wealth of the people in the middle, who now have more resources to allocate, but does not necessarily reduce the number of hungry people.