I thought that nonsense belief died with the last of the Vienna Circle. I mean, I understand why you'd want to believe it, but, at this point, it's completely irrational.

Not to my knowledge.

Yes. There are a number of atheist churches -- enough, at least, that one made the news some time ago for breaking-off from their parent church over some silly difference.

Yes, including television shows. This isn't counting the countless online radio, video streaming, podcasts, video series, and other similar media programs. Yes, some even ask for money.

Yes. Yes they do. Not just specific atheists churches, mind you, but outreach is a big part of a number of atheist communities.

That's just for fun. The trouble you're having is in defining religion through superficial trappings. It's like saying something isn't science because there aren't sufficient beakers and lab coats around.

Color 7? That's yellow on the C64; white/gray on the ZX Spectrum, IBM's CGA, and a host of others; and a not quite, but almost, black blue in modern 24-bit RGB.

Ideally, yes, but we all know that that's not all there is to it these days.

Then why, when I visit atheist websites sites, atheist discussion forums, and talk with local atheists, that's all they want to talk about?

Like hell there isn't! To belong to any atheist community, you need to align with their dogma, have read and agree with their favorite authors, and "other thingamajigs" or you'll be ousted as a troll or worse.

You've probably noticed that there's more than one schism dividing atheists. With various atheist groups at each others throats over things not even remotely related to the existence of god. You'd have to be blind not to see that.

To say that atheism, to most/every atheist (as we're talking about the broader atheist community), is merely "the lack of belief in a god" is either delusional or deliberately dishonest.

Ebola may not be easy to transmit, but it sure as heck isn't hard to transmit. It's not pedantically known to be airborne, but it is believed to be spread by droplets (e.g. sneezes). There's a very, very, very fine line between the two.

And yes, I can provide citations if you'd like, but it's not like they're very hard to find with a Google search.

How does GPL being viral help? If it was BSD licensed, even after a Microsoft purchase, they couldn't un-BSD the BSD version, so it would still be available...

I suppose that's true, but to foil the "go home" you'd have to jam GPS as well as control signals. And the obvious counter to that is inertial guidance.

You have obviously never been to west africa. People there can and do ignore the governments, which are mostly irrelevant to every day life on a scale American libertines and European anarchists cannot imagine. The whole concept of "they should do X" is laughable. There is no one who can or will do "X". Life is not like that.

So has the iphone. It's just an iphone. Other than color, all iterations of a model are, and must always be, exactly the same. I guess there's a lesson for kids in there somewhere.

You're right. And as I said in another response, I'm thinking that media drones will also get a legal pass, as long as they're not used to embarrass the police, by, you know, exposing their misuse of surplus military equipment, as just one example.

I don't think private individuals using drones to be a peeping tom is a serious problem, but assuming for the sake of argument it is, consider that drones are cheap and getting cheaper, so losing a few may not be a problem. Also, they're hard to see at night, which is when all the cool stuff is happening. And you know, right, that modern drone camera systems downlink to a base station for a live feed? So dropping the drone doesn't destroy the video.

Jamming the drone may give you some temporary relief, but even that won't actually cause the drone to crash, as modern drones have a "go home" failsafe if they lose signal.

On the other hand, touching off a firearm in the city limits under circumstances not considered life-or-death is generally frowned upon by the local constabulary. Likewise, but much less serious, jamming in general is frowned upon by those same agencies.

But again, I doubt that individuals using drones for some purile neighbor spying will become a thing. Much more likely would be drones deployed by the media, which may get a legal pass as long as they're not embarrassing the police, private security entities, and of course, any local or national government agency.

The impression I got was that she was more against private ownership of camera-equipped drones. I'm guessing that this argument will be used to put limits on individually owned drones, not on government owned drones.

My daughter has been out of high school for a couple years, but during her junior and senior years, she said that kids tended to prefer android over the iphone because you could change the look and feel of the phone by customizing the desktop or substituting a completely different desktop, which they referred to as "bling", whereas every iphone was like every other iphone. Individuality was important, and the iphone was considered generic and boring.

Of course, it was an art magnet school, and kids tended to be more quirky and individual than your standard public school student in America.

For awhile she was in a retro phase. We found a "geek junk store" that had a bunch of older Blackberrys for something like five bucks apiece. She had a collection of different models and would swap the sim card back and forth depending on her mood that day.

I appreciate that the above describes a market segment that Apple has no interest in pursuing.

'D' and 'T', 'G' and 'K', and even 'P' and 'B' are frequently all but impossible to discern by lip-reading alone, and can only ever really be discerned when one of the alternatives simply does not make any sense. But this is not always the case.

We're trying to catch the terrorists, not dress like them.