That's why when he talks on and on, it's as if Franny isn't even there listening to him.

那就是为什么当他一直说呀说，即使弗兰尼并没有在听。

耶鲁公开课 - 1945年后的美国小说课程节选

So I think that if cost-benefit analysis isn't employed, the greater good is sacrificed, in this case.

所以我认为此种情况下，如果不用成本效益分析，会牺牲更多人的利益。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

But if we say that, then we're back to saying that somebody who's asleep isn't really alive.

但如果这么说，我们就回到了,说睡觉的人并不是活着的讨论上。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

And even if you know intellectually full well that sashimi isn't why you became nauseous still you'll develop an aversion to this new food.

即使你在理智上完全清楚,并不是生鱼片让你变得恶心,但你依然会产生对于这种新食物的厌恶感。

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选

So I claim, if I've counted correctly, that this actually isn't an equilibrium.

所以我说,如果我数对了,这实际上不是一个均衡

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Now again we're not-- the purpose of this class isn't to have you improve your diet, if that happens that's fine, but that's not the purpose of the class.

现在再次重申,本门课的目的不是改进你的饮食,如果你的饮食因此改善,那很好,但是这不是本门课的目的

耶鲁公开课 - 关于食物的心理学、生物学和政治学课程节选

But notice what this does. The first thing it does is, it says, let's check and make sure x is greater than or equal to 0. If it isn't, notice what's going to happen. None of that block is going to get executed, and it's going to come down here and print out a useful piece of information, which says, hey, you gave me a negative number. I don't know how to do this.

做的是和以前一样的事情,但是注释它做了什么，第一件做的事情就是,程序说，要去检查并且确信x是大于等于0的，如果不是的话，请注意会发生什么,下面的代码都不会被执行,程序会到这里来然后显示一些有用的信息,信息会说，嘿，你给了我一个负数,我不知道该怎么弄这个了。

麻省理工公开课 - 计算机科学及编程导论课程节选

If it's a bad argument, then Locke's given us a mere rationalization that isn't morally defensible.

如果他的观点是错的，那么洛克的辩护,只是看似合理，但在道义上站不住脚。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

If it were true, probably it isn't true, but if it were true, that half of brain was enough, then half of the brain would be enough.

如果这是真的，也许这不是真的，但如果这是真实的，半边大脑就够用了，那就只需要半边大脑来判断。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

So this isn't so hard, we know that if I choose Up and there's probability 0 that the other guy is going to choose Right, that's the same as saying I choose Up and the other guy chooses, let's try it again.

这不是很难得,我们知道如果我选上的话,我对手选右的概率就是0,也就是说我选上,我对手会选择,我说错了,重新来

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So you're worried that if there isn't some degree of redistribution of some or left at the bottom, there will be no genuine equality of opportunity.

所以你担心,如果没有一定程度的再分配,照顾社会底层，就不会有名副其实的机会均等。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

But even if it isn't, that wouldn't save the argument.

但是即使它不是，那也挽救不了他的论证。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

But if the state has the right to take my earning or the fruits of my labor, isn't that morally the same as according to the state the right to claim a portion of my labor?

但如果政府有权,强占我的收入或劳动果实，这在道义上不就等同于,政府有权,让我做部分义务劳动吗？

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

But although I've been at pains to say this is the fundamental bad thing about death, I think it's arguable that-- I think one could make the case that this isn't the only bad thing about death, even if we're focusing on why is death bad for me?

但是虽然我一直在努力阐述,这是死亡的基本坏处，我觉得-,人们有理由认为,这不是死亡的唯一坏处，就算我们重点思考为何死亡对我是坏事？

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选