A Quote by Charles Stross

The programmers have another saying: 'The question of whether a machine can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.' — © Charles Stross
The programmers have another saying: 'The question of whether a machine can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.'
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
The question of whether computers can think is like the question of whether submarines can swim.
The wrong question to ask of a myth is whether it is true or false. The right question is whether it is living or dead, whether it still speaks to our condition.
When I think about whether I want to take a job, I don't just think about whether it's technically interesting, although I do consider that. I also consider the question of whether it's good for the world.
The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man.
The question isn't whether or not to censor artists who espouse misogynistic views. The question is whether or not we support them as listeners and consumers.
The old question of whether there is design is idle. The real question is what is the world, whether or not it have a designer--and that can be revealed only by the study of all nature's particulars.
A new question has arisen in modern man's mind, the question, namely, whether life is worth living...No sensible answer can be given to the question...because the question does not make any sense.
The question isn’t whether or not you should wait to be picked, the question is whether you care enough to pick yourself.
The question is not, do we go to church; the question is, have we been converted. The crux of Christianity is not whether or not we give donations to popular charities but whether or not we are really committed to the poor.
I think fundamentally, the question of whether or not Christianity makes sense - whether it withstands scrutiny, whether the evidence supports it or hurts it - always comes down to the Resurrection.
I am somewhat uncertain whether there is a definite factual question as to whether natural language handles truth-value gaps. Nor am I even quite sure that there is a definite question of fact as to whether natural language should be evaluated by the minimal fixed point or another, given the choice of a scheme for handling gaps. We are not at the moment searching for the correct scheme.
There are those who insist that it is a very bad thing to question God. To them, “why?” is a rude question. That depends, I believe, on whether it is an honest search, in faith, for His meaning, or whether it is the challenge of unbelief and rebellion.
People who live in the post-totalitarian system know only too well that the question of whether one or several political parties are in power, and how these parties define and label themselves, is of far less importance than the question of whether or not it is possible to live like a human being.
There's no question that ghosts exist. The big question for me is whether ghosts are simply electronic imprints left in the walls or the atmosphere of places, or whether they do actually represent something from the afterlife.
The question should not be whether or not police are allowed to confront suspects; it should be about how we train them. The question should not be whether we have police; it should be how we use them. The question should not be whether judges should have the ability to protect New Yorkers from violent offenders; it should be how we let them.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!