Depends entierly on the atheist. Some start from a Buddhist background. In fact, so ARE Buddhists. (My main problem with Buddhism is that all the arguments are phrased in terms of inevitable reincarnation of something...Buddha was a bit opaque about just what, so I'm not certain that I can't believe it, but I'm sure not certain that I can.)

My personal problem has to do with the nature of the evidence, and the unreliability of even disinterested eye-witness testimony. The only gods I'm certain of are those that I've encountered (I *think* they're the same things that others have called gods), and they appear to be mental phenomena. (I'd say psychic, but that term has been so misused that it would be even more likely to be misunderstood.) They appear to be sub-linguistic mental phenomena that are probably the same things that Jung called archetypes. The roots from which all mental functioning is buit. These features seem to be shared by many (all?) people, though it's hard to be sure, and some of them even seem to be shared with other mammals. (Well, dogs to be specific. I don't understand cats well enough to comment about them, and the evidence is quite weak even for dogs...being more along the lies of "consistent with the theory" than "experimental proof", but then that's true even for other people.)

Also, your attribution of certain beliefs as originating with Christianity is highly suspect. Many Christian practices and beliefs came from Mithraism. Others from Judism. And Others from Hellenistic Greek philosophy. Just how much originated with Christianity is extremely dubious if, in fact, anything did except a bit of clever phrasing and some political tactics. Certainly the equality of people before the gods was neither unique with Christianity, nor universally held by Christians. (See, for one example, "The Divine Right of Kings". It was also held in many times and [Christian] places that the more powerful were more loved by god. The Puritans, e.g, made it explicit. "Material success the the manifest sign of divine favor." That's not an exact qoute, as far as I know, but it could be.)

Are you sure that's a state law? My understanding was that it in the contract the store had with the credit card company.

But given that this appears to be a long-standing and profitable business prractice, what effect would you expect giving them a negative rating to have?

Please justify that statement. It seems to me that in a truly free market you would even be free to murder the competition. That's the way it works in the closest thing to a free market that exists....the black market.

Didn't the summary say this behavior had been legitimized by the courts?

But perhaps another court would decide differently. Perhaps you could take them to small claims court...but how would you get them to pay up if you won?

Clearly, the adoption of Common Core, and indeed most modern eduction "theory", lends credibility to your assertion that 2+2=5.

I think it's pretty neutral to say that I should get what I pay for and not have some toady at Time Warner deciding what's worthy of being passed along at advertised rate.

They filled NY with garbage. and I'm not talking about themselves. Note that a bunch of A-listers flew in on private jets too.

I bet that only 1 in 4 knew why they were actually marching. The rest were there for the party.

Obviously. I'm a little disturbed that apparently at least two people thought otherwise...

That's, to me, a new example of the problems with systemd.

So far the only one that's sounded serious is the "won't fix" reply to a report of logfile corruption. But there have been a humongous number of complaints about different small problems.

To me systemd sounds like a bad idea. I don't really know. The problem appears that it's going to be hard to avoid, and with so many small problems, it's quite likely that there are some serious one.

A question in my mind is "What problem does it fix?" The only answer I've heard is that you can boot faster. This doesn't impress me, as I rarely boot my computer, and when I do I often want many of the steps to happen slowly enough that I can tell what is going on.

My suspicion is that systemd is a very bad direction to go. I'm remembering that mono was also sponsered by Red Hat. And even if I grant the best of intentions, big chunks of code tend to break more often and be harder to fix.

My interpretation is fully deterministic in the same sense that their was. Probabilistic is meant in the "sum over histories" sense that multiple histories yield the same present, so you can't reasonably pick just one and say "That's what came earlier", but you instead have a spread of probabilities of linkage. I interpret that probability as the strength (weight) of the link. From each past the probabilities to all the futures it links to sum to 1. Similarly from each present the probabilities of all the pasts it links to sum to 1.

The difference between out models is that EWG, at least in the presentation that I read, only considered forwards (toward the future) links. I see no reason to believe that this is a correct interpretation. (I'm not sure about chronology, but I believe the EWG model was created prior to Feynman's Sum over Histories approach being derived. This difference is probably the result of that.)

This seems more specialised, so maybe it should be "fanatically loose Internet programming". That would make the abbreviation "FLIP-FLOP", which conveniently also describes the views of anyone who "signed" this "manifesto" when the next buzzword comes along next week.

Also, all programming is now back-ends for web sites. If you write old-timer stuff like desktop applications, mobile apps, system software, embedded software, or front-ends for web sites, please turn in your credentials on your way out.

They have repaved the road in front of my subdivision 3 fucking times in the last ten years.

The water Department has torn up the street in front of my house twice trying to fix a water leak.

Every time there is a thunderstorm the power goes out.

Where is Augustus when you need him?

It's no secret who filmed the footage or what they were doing at the time: they spotted the studio by accident while doing publicity shots for a local flight school. It seems a safe bet that the drone flight in question would be compliant with the CAA rules.