NO, YOU ARE WRONG

No, I disagree. I take that all back. I am Wrong. We need to do the opposite create ever more complex programming languages, create trillions of complex, insanely complex languages and chips and systems, things that require trillions of people working for trillions of years just to print "Hello Idiotic World", etc. So I imagine trillions of languages made up of trillions of books full of symbols (wild symbols, wild logic, wild diagrams and concepts), concepts, indirections, denotations, trillions of chips with trillions of transistors, the more complex the better, the more time wasting the better, since time is there to be wasted anyways, time is always wasted anyways, we need to be occupied and need to kill time (all of this as a corollary of my other projects for Mankind like building trillions of robots and skyscrapers and rockets and space travel and so forth and trillions of new brain designs, etc.)

So, yes, we need to invent very large languages and programs full of wild symbols (that doesn't work and will need an infinite amount of time to debug, the more they don't work the better, the more insanity the better, contradict logic always, go backwards, do the opposite of what should be done, go backwards always, so cool...) a language that occupies a hundred books each a thousand pages long, and trillions of new languages, by the time the future comes, the year 2100 we will have an encyclopedia of programming languages having trillions of incredibly complex languages and systems, the mind occupied is the mind free...


THE APE JOB, THE APE CAN,THE TOBOR, THE 8TH MEN..

SHPACK A LAK A SHPAC, SHPAK A LOAG ... BARBIE CONFUSED ...
SHPAG A LA G ASHLAG A LEG A SHPACK A LACK

the ape job, the spe can, the tobor, the 8th men..


shapc a lack a shpac , shpeck a lag al lag barbie confused... shapak a lak,,ùùù
Leave a comment
Thanks for signing in, 8man. (sign out)
Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)

nameta9

Philosopher

 

Posts: 1626

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am