|
Pretty simple. When you convince a reasonable amount of people that something is art, it becomes art. Even weird stuff can become art if the idea that it is art is new and refreshing enough to enough people that care about art.
Art is not something objective, but something subjective. Something is art only through a group of people believing it is.
|
|
|
On July 20 2016 04:36 Gorsameth wrote:Because everything is art so long as you say it is.
More exactly, everything that has a public considering it as art is art. And I'm pretty sure this has a public.
|
On July 20 2016 02:34 Simberto wrote:
My position is that humanity is better than no humanity. And no matter how bad the other side is, they might eventually get their shit sorted out. Societies change. Give it a few hundred or thousand years, and there will be barely any resemblence between the evil other block that killed you, and the society that arose in its wake. Firing now will deny humanity of this potential to build new societies, and will forever condemn us to remain the idiots who blew themselves up due to their own stupidity.
Counter-proposal: Launch a partial counter-attack, destroying enough of the other bloc to destroy it as a bloc, but not enough to doom humanity.
|
On July 20 2016 06:16 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 02:34 Simberto wrote:
My position is that humanity is better than no humanity. And no matter how bad the other side is, they might eventually get their shit sorted out. Societies change. Give it a few hundred or thousand years, and there will be barely any resemblence between the evil other block that killed you, and the society that arose in its wake. Firing now will deny humanity of this potential to build new societies, and will forever condemn us to remain the idiots who blew themselves up due to their own stupidity. Counter-proposal: Launch a partial counter-attack, destroying enough of the other bloc to destroy it as a bloc, but not enough to doom humanity.
Your still pointlessly killing out of spite. Your all dead
|
If you're a superpower, you should have enough people in bunkers to restart humanity. It would be stupid not too.
|
On July 20 2016 07:16 Sent. wrote:
If you're a superpower, you should have enough people in bunkers to restart humanity. It would be stupid not too.
Restarting humanity when the continent around you is a giant nuclear fallout zone might be kinda tricky
|
Those bunkers should have huuuuuge granaries
|
On July 20 2016 07:16 Sent. wrote:
If you're a superpower, you should have enough people in bunkers to restart humanity. It would be stupid not too.
There are some interesting white papers based on the idea that after all the nukes go off, the survivors in bunkers would fight a more-or-less conventional war in radiation gear. The later expansions to the arsenal doomed the idea, but it was a grim-ass concept.
"To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."
|
On July 20 2016 06:16 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 02:34 Simberto wrote:
My position is that humanity is better than no humanity. And no matter how bad the other side is, they might eventually get their shit sorted out. Societies change. Give it a few hundred or thousand years, and there will be barely any resemblence between the evil other block that killed you, and the society that arose in its wake. Firing now will deny humanity of this potential to build new societies, and will forever condemn us to remain the idiots who blew themselves up due to their own stupidity. Counter-proposal: Launch a partial counter-attack, destroying enough of the other bloc to destroy it as a bloc, but not enough to doom humanity.
Yeah would be my proposal too. Get rid of the jerk who for some reason doomed half of humanity without even calling beforehand. Nuke the government, but not the rest.
If that doesn't work I'd probably not nuke at all. I'd be angry and sad as hell, but well, it's not like anyone wins outside of my ego if I press the button.
I'm more and more convinced that modern arts main goal is to parody the art market and hope that parodies qualify as art. I mean look at Manzoni f.e., who is very blatant in his approach.
Also art is only art in the eyes of the beholder. So the moment someone accepts it as art, it's art.
Or to put it differently: modern art is full of ****. Quite literally in Manzoni's case. There's some logical reasoning to event art, but except for that I haven't heard of a single logical concept in modern arts after Picasso.
|
On July 20 2016 06:05 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 04:36 Gorsameth wrote:Because everything is art so long as you say it is. More exactly, everything that has a public considering it as art is art. And I'm pretty sure this has a public.
And to add to that, self proclaimed artists often enjoy discussing whether their art is art or not. The discussion shows that their art evoked some kind of response in you, which many say is a sign of successful art. So art that doesn't look like art for non-artists is essentially just a trap. The artists are trolls trying to get a reaction, any reaction, and the art is their bait. Or that's how i see it. 
|
Are any of these DNA testing things legit? The ones about origin (80%this 10% that, etc..) not parentage.
If so, how legit?
|
On July 20 2016 09:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are any of these DNA testing things legit? The ones about origin (80%this 10% that, etc..) not parentage.
If so, how legit?
I did one, have a blog about it; from what I can garner the broad strokes match familial records and mine go back quite far. An aunt of mine who does genealogy as a hobby can track us back to the 1400s in Europe from the Midwest in the US.
I wouldn't expect more than broad strokes though.
|
United States44205 Posts
On July 20 2016 07:22 Sent. wrote:
Those bunkers should have huuuuuge granariespyramids
|
How many pieces of KFC Chicken does one whole chicken make? 10?
|
Two breasts, two drumsticks, two thighs. I guess the wings don't go into a KFC bucket. So six? I'm I missing an obvious one?
Edit: No I looked it up, those are all the pieces.
|
|
|
On July 20 2016 00:04 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 23:26 Simberto wrote:On July 19 2016 23:13 JimmiC wrote:
I believe the prevailing wisdom is that if one person fires a nuke then another will fire theirs and so on and so forth. Basically everywhere is allied with someone who has nukes so it would be hard to fire one and not have some one retaliate. As for a study on how many it would take for global annihilation, I have not read one but it would be interesting. Yes, but the scenario is not the one talked about there. The question there was originally: There are two blocks, both of which have the nuclear capacity to annihilate the other. You see the other guy launching. There is nothing to stop the missiles. You are now dead, and your civilisation destroyed. Do you launch yours to also destroy the other guy? Not talking about the pregame, where you want to make the other guy not launch with the threat of also annihilating them. The situation is done. The missiles have been launched. Do you destroy the remaining half of humanity out of revenge, or do you not do that and give humanity a chance, even if it is the people that destroyed and murdered you. Edit: And now the question is "Even if you don't launch, are the nukes the other guy used to destroy you enough to also destroy their civilization through effects like global radiation and nuclear winter?" I was responding to just the bold part. But yeah you do launch and you have to make it clear to everyone that you would. Because that's MAD the whole point of having nukes is that you are willing to use them, so people don't use theirs on you. Edit: Or was the Bold part saying that if you obliterate half the planet then the nuclear fallout would create a nuclear winter that would destroy the world anyways? I'm thinking that was the question now, and that is why he was asking for a study on how many nukes to destroy the planet. So in closing I guess I'm useless 
The weapon is meaningless.
Imagine a planet with two main groups.
One group initiates plans to wipe out half the planet. Do you, in response, guarantee that 100% of the planet is dead or do you allow the 50% that killed you to live. You will be dead regardless. Everyone you know and love will be dead, regardless. Only the people you hate and despise will live. Only the people whose culture you hate and despise will live. Do you wipe out humanity because of your prejudice and need for vengeance, or do you allow those you hate to live in order for humanity to live?
That is the actual question.
|
On July 20 2016 21:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 00:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 19 2016 23:26 Simberto wrote:On July 19 2016 23:13 JimmiC wrote:
I believe the prevailing wisdom is that if one person fires a nuke then another will fire theirs and so on and so forth. Basically everywhere is allied with someone who has nukes so it would be hard to fire one and not have some one retaliate. As for a study on how many it would take for global annihilation, I have not read one but it would be interesting. Yes, but the scenario is not the one talked about there. The question there was originally: There are two blocks, both of which have the nuclear capacity to annihilate the other. You see the other guy launching. There is nothing to stop the missiles. You are now dead, and your civilisation destroyed. Do you launch yours to also destroy the other guy? Not talking about the pregame, where you want to make the other guy not launch with the threat of also annihilating them. The situation is done. The missiles have been launched. Do you destroy the remaining half of humanity out of revenge, or do you not do that and give humanity a chance, even if it is the people that destroyed and murdered you. Edit: And now the question is "Even if you don't launch, are the nukes the other guy used to destroy you enough to also destroy their civilization through effects like global radiation and nuclear winter?" I was responding to just the bold part. But yeah you do launch and you have to make it clear to everyone that you would. Because that's MAD the whole point of having nukes is that you are willing to use them, so people don't use theirs on you. Edit: Or was the Bold part saying that if you obliterate half the planet then the nuclear fallout would create a nuclear winter that would destroy the world anyways? I'm thinking that was the question now, and that is why he was asking for a study on how many nukes to destroy the planet. So in closing I guess I'm useless The weapon is meaningless. Imagine a planet with two main groups. One group initiates plans to wipe out half the planet. Do you, in response, guarantee that 100% of the planet is dead or do you allow the 50% that killed you to live. You will be dead regardless. Everyone you know and love will be dead, regardless. Only the people you hate and despise will live. Only the people whose culture you hate and despise will live. Do you wipe out humanity because of your prejudice and need for vengeance, or do you allow those you hate to live in order for humanity to live? That is the actual question.
I personally would say no right now, I would not kill the other faction. But I have never experienced that intense hatred as you describe, so I can't know what I would do under that circumstance. And I think that goes for everyone else posting in this thread as well.
|
On July 20 2016 09:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are any of these DNA testing things legit? The ones about origin (80%this 10% that, etc..) not parentage.
If so, how legit?
As far as I understand: Origin is statistically based and is nowdays legit enough. List of sampled loci are statistically more prevalent today in a given region, therefore the result displays that origin. Sounds legit enough and databases nowdays are good enough for this.
Main confusion is in the interpretation of the % displayed. You are bound to have 50% DNA of each of your parents, but you may have 0% from one of your grandparents and 50% from another (1 in 8 million, but still true).
Positives are valid, negatives aren't : if the test says 12% native american, there is almost certainly some native american ancestor. However, 12% does not mean 12% of the ancestors were native american and 0% does not mean you don't have any ancestry in a given country/region.
Best case scenario, you get the origin of your current DNA (true often enough).
Worst case ... 0% only indicates that you didn't inherit any DNA from those ancestors in the sample loci that were analyzed, but there may be DNA present from that origin outside of the sampling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
