The Tate Modern had a piece of art which was very big, in the Turbine Room, but other than its size it was utterly unremarkable. Are you in danger of reproducing this problem; your art is small, but...so what? It's already well known that machines can be used to make small things, such as the IBM logo being produced using individual atoms back in 1989. Does your art bring anything to the table?

> Since Replicants live short lives, and Deckard is a Replicant, how is this going to be reconciled
> in the movie?

Given Replicants are machines, there's nothing from taking a snapshot of their state and restoring that state into a new machine. I do it with vmware all the time. As long as the new Replicant hardware has support for virtualisation, that is.

Not sure there are many repercussions, to be honest. I'm sure when stuff gets published the author's mothers are very proud, and it's great that other people can then learn from the good stuff, but there are a hell of a lot of pointless, boring papers being written as part of some study or project that nobody gives a shit about either way. What are the implications of this paper being published? Other than giving a few people a laugh, and perhaps whoever is responsible for the quality of the journal having to be seen to send an email to whoever was responsible for it being checked, I'd wager precisely nothing.

> it only means that there exists some sizable amount of data which merely suggests it as a
> possibility, and that no data has yet been accumulated which can actually show that this is not
> the case

You've got it backwards. The "sizable" data is just not sizable enough, not backed with any reputable peer reviewed studies, and therefore there's no case to answer.

And what he's said (repeatedly) is literally an example of racism, of racist statements.

He meant free.

At which point it's a physical (and psychological) game; at least if you are doing it right. :)

If there was ever a time for an "all of the above" this was the time. I pretty much play most of those varieties (Card, Board, Video, Pen & Paper and Physical games).

Even with the track records of billions of downloads of other people's intellectual property, there's probably still a good chance 12 fuckwits in the Land Of The Free (tm) will decide there's not enough evidence to indict anyone.

"I fully agree that Android is very far from Linux. Honestly Android is extremely far from any Linux distro, in that I as a user have exactly zero control of what the OS does. The security model is completely flawed (all control is in the hands of Google and the application developers instead of in the user's)."

Of only android was open source, then all this could be fixed.

No. Look at distrowatch. Unity promoted millions of users over to Mint, with its choice of sane front ends.

It's telling how people always ask "is it worth getting this certification" not "will I learn a lot about xxx by getting this certification". Employers now know this. This is why you shouldn't be disheartened when you get a job and find there's no money/time allocated to getting employers certified; it provides no benefits whatsoever in terms of making the employer more productive, it just gives them a slight edge should they want to subsequently leave you for an employer who still takes the certification seriously.

Largely because of the first-sale doctrine, which codifies property rights sanity: if you sell me something, it is now mine, not yours. I can do whatever I want with it. Use my spatula as a screwdriver? Use a thermos bottle for a hammer? Watch scenes in a movie out of order? It's none of your business. I bought it. It is now my property, and I'm free to do with it as I please.

(Averting pedantry: of course that doesn't involve violating copyright. Straw men will be ignored.)

You don't need a shortcut, if you're on windows. Just type
net use //machine/share

Isn't that the beer that comes in the cool, silver can?