You might as well make it an online course, so that all could follow along much more easily. Coursera seems to works well for me.
They didn't ship from other countries to the USA. Also, just having "atheist" or "Christian" on the tape might confuse them, if they never heard of a religious brand of shoe. It would confuse me.
I ship to the USA on occasion, from Canada, and I need to fill out a form. Despite having done it several times, it still does seem odd. I believe that 1 slip up could easily confuse them.
This story is an example of why I never trust atheists to be impartial to the evidence, or to philosophy, or to morals.
I will admit that it is very suspicious that only certain packages get delayed, but I would never assume that it is hatred of "atheism".
So, are you saying that atheist packages came from Canada and had the same fail rates? Sending them from Canada or other countries into the US would be scientific, wouldn't it?
I agree with you on considering the size of the area being governed. That is rarely considered, when people choose an economic model, even though it should be.
I agree with what you say. When we don't pay, then there isn't a huge incentive, but you know how it is. People on Slashdot keep yammering about what a great deal it is to open up the source [e.g. "Think of all the development costs that you'll save!!1!"], and how everybody should use it [e.g. "Think of all the purchase costs that you'll save!!1!"].
Like I said, I agree, but it's not appropriate to tell people that they should use it, or that open source is better, and then say that programmers don't care.
So, you say that you don't represent all programmers, which makes sense, but that wasn't the impression that I got. Then again, maybe I'm being too pedantic [or whatever]. Then again, this is Slashdot, and we can never know what is meant until it is spelled out.
I see that you have a 7 digit user number. Maybe you are new here; I don't know. I can say for sure, though, that many GPL advocates certainly did think that they were doing the world a favour by using open source software.
You would give a hoot, because you are speaking on behalf of all programmers, it seems. I think that Richard wants everybody to use free software. If that is true, then programmers are going to have to be more accommodating.
I remember seeing a ncurses [or something like that] display with RH 6. It was my first Linux attempt, and it never worked until I became experienced enough to figure out the correct settings for it.
Richard Stallman does NOT want your software to be widely used by people who contribute nothing??!? Really?! Is that what he said?
If I were a cat, and if I were tired of you using photos of me on the web, and if I were to going to give you payback, then do you *really* think that I would give you free porn photos of me?
My master, on the hand...
At the London preview screening Peter Jackson said that because 48fps + 3d is 4x the frames it's taken longer to render and the last scene with the coins was only finished a couple days before the premiere. He did mention the complexity in moving coins though
The guy that I was responding to insisted on perpetual debt. If you want to spend borrowed money on a fantastic opportunity that is time limited, then go for it. However maintaining a perpetual debt on purpose is a waste.
Regarding your argument of job losses, yes I understand, but people quit their jobs all the time. As they quit, spending could be reduced, to discourage hiring.
Shuttering the military industrial complex sounds nice to me. I don't believe that government and CEOs should be in the position to maintain employment by hiring people to make things for killing. In that specific situation, their manufacturing would be no more productive than just sitting around doing nothing. I suppose that they might as well make ammo for target practise, but that's not the point of this discussion.
For your job loss concern, the money would be better spent giving financial rewards to those who build and sell environmentally friendly products. I realize that you weren't speaking against such a suggestion, but my point is that reduced spending, plus shuttering manufacturing of a certain thing, and maintaining a surplus can be a good thing.
I'm not saying that we have to have a surplus, even if it shocks the economy. I'm saying that having a surplus is a good thing, and that we can't speak out against it, just because it's a surplus.
If we're really concerned about job losses, then the government could have the same effect by closing off the borders, and requiring more domestic manufacturing, and finding ways to direct our personal spending.
Or you can just save your money and spend more as the economy increases. Instead of spending on interest, just spend it on things that we care about.
Hi. Thanks for the feedback.
Moderators, please mod him up as informative. Here is the take away paragraph.
Early data suggests that a period of approximately two years of intermittent treatments may be required to attain the goal of long-term abstinence from narcotics and stimulants for many patients. The majority of patients treated with Ibogaine remain free from chemical dependence for a period of three to six months after a single dose. Approximately ten percent of patients treated with Ibogaine remain free of chemical dependence for two or more years from a single treatment and an equal percentage return to drug use within two weeks after treatment. Multiple administrations of Ibogaine over a period of time are generally more effective in extending periods of abstinence. It is noteworthy that twenty-nine of the thirty-five patients successfully treated with Ibogaine had numerous unsuccessful experiences with other treatment modalities.
It would be more like every 1,000th. I doubt that 1 person could produce enough heat to justify much.