If you can't counter an argument there's probably no point broadcasting the fact.
He said it wasn't him though, which rather pooh-poohs that argument. That and the fact his nation's internet presence can be taken out by going to one of the four
I agree with you generally, although the problem with that argument is that should someone else come to power in the US that didn't like the freedom they'd just get rid of it anyway.
They were already in use. Any subsequent use would help increase their usage, obviously. If not this then something else. There's nothing notable about this case.
> As an analogy, you may ask "is harmony important in music?"
Odd thing to throw in there. No, it's not, whether you're talking about music consisting of a single line, or some variety of dissonant music which has no tonal centre and where it makes very little sense to talk about harmony other than in the very basic "more than one tone at once" sense which is utterly meaningless if you ask me.
Elephant/flea: well, you're making art for humans. Again, with the musical analogy there's stuff like John Cage's piece which is designed to last years, and at the other extreme people like Stockhausen have constructed pieces where a fragment of music is speeded up so that it's perceived as a "texture" to be used as a compositional building block rather than a series of pitches to be listened to in its own right.
Yes, I did add "in art" to avoid potential sniggering. Was your question in fact a way of highlighting that art should not be considered separately to anything else; that I might be suggesting that size might matter anywhere else except in the construction of artwork? I have a pretty open mind for what constitutes art. Duchamp said that anything could be art, and Zappa said that art was "making something out of nothing, and selling it"; he also wisely said that art should entertain you; don't worry about whether something is high art or low art.
Putting all that together, whilst I appreciate anyone doing art for the sake of it, with no rules about what or why or what size etc, when it comes down to it something that fits on a table is no more impressive to me whether it fulls a building or fits on the head of a needle.
It was a job programming games in a company which did Sega Megadrive games. They guarded the docs pretty zealously (ie each page had the company name written, by hand, over it). Couldn't talk about how it worked, what I was doing, how many games Sega had allowed us to publish that year etc etc. (Another job was similar except it was for some IBM tool or other).
I had no intention to breach the contracts, but at the same time I wasn't going to let the fear of what might happen should I subsequently work for another company who asked me about what I'd done in a previous job worry me because I'm not a lawyer and have no idea if (all of) the NDA was legal/defensible in court (I'm in the UK). The problem was never going to be about signing it, but what happened if I broke it later.
I was. I mean, I didn't have to sign it but i'd not have got the job otherwise. Doesn't mean you agree with it. Hell, doesn't mean you're going to obey it, but all that comes later.
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.