The 1 and the 0.

[Raziaar]

An interesting concept.

 

[ericms]

No, I want a decision to be clear. A question to be answerable. No wishy-washy grey areas. No uncertainties. No middle-answer. No middle-ground. No, 50/50. Yes or No. We can count however we like. It wouldn't make much difference to us if we were taught to count in binary. We only find it difficult because we've been brought up with the decimal number system with denary characters. Sure, we'd use more paper, but at least there's a clear distinction between 1 and 0, and no-one would be saying, is that 696 or 969, or is that an 8 or a 0.

World hunger would no longer exist, and poverty would be useless. You'd either be dead or alive. The whole world would be so much simpler.

First of all, my question was a joke. Second of all, how would it resolve those things? Third of all, what makes you think obscurity isn't something striven for?

 

[Druckles]

I'm going to give live as an electron , bloody fictional God and his bloody multiple choices.

Edit: No, you asked if I was being serious. And then gave a statement. I didn't respond to the amputee "question", as I was quite aware it wasn't a question worth answering.

You might not solve world hunger entirely, but at least you'd only be hungry or not hungry. If you're hungry, you eat. If you're not hungry, you give the bits you have to those who are hungry. If you don't eat, then you die. And even then, that's not to say you can't be hungry or not. You're either dead or you're alive. Not depressed, half-alive, half-dead. You're not half-deaf and you don't need to wear glasses because you're either blind or you're not. You can't be questioned, because you're either right or you're wrong.

And why do people search for answers if obscurity is "striven for"?

 

[ericms]

I'm sorry, are you saying that you wished our world existed in a quasi-binary sort of way? I think I completely misunderstood what you said.

My point about obscurity was that it is often essential in deceiving people. Politics is proof enough of this. I'm not against deceiving people given that I'm better off and that I don't mind what conditions the person/people I'm deceiving are thereafter put under. I'm always against people deceiving me however and there is nothing hypocritical about that because I don't believe in ethical absolutism. You're taking on this position from the standpoint that man would be "better off." That an absolutist position as you're gauging it on some standards.

 

[Druckles]

No, I don't imply mankind would be better off. I imply I personally would be better off. That's why death has always seemed so attractive. It's a state of a definitive nature, and you know (or don't know) where you are.

 

[Saturos]

I think punchcards were the first real digital 'media'

Hermann Hollerith's tabulating machine!:dork: Also, he was the founder of IBM back in 1901. *everyone pointing at Saturos* Major MAJOR :dork::dork::dork: nerd alert!