Cap'n Refsmmat

Disclaimer: I highly recommend that you discuss these thoughts with a real psychiatrist thouroughly, rather than asking questionable people on the Internet. Anyways, I'd like to mention that your weightlifting could really be helping you - and I suggest you get more excercise. Physical activity boosts your endorphin level, and endorphins make you feel happier and better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphin

Scientists have found a genetic "marker" that indicates a 60% greater chance of acquiring prostate cancer in those men who have the gene, which may also help explain why black men are much more prone to the disease. It appears that the genetic marker appears with twice the frequency in blacks than whites, although this variation has not been explained. Researchers hope to use the discovery to tell which men to follow more closely and check more frequently for the cancer, and it will most likely help in early detection and treatment of the cancer. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060507/ap_on_he_me/prostate_cancer

What did the email say?

If enough people used it, they'd just add more trains and cars to each train. The combination of train and oil-fired powerplant is still more efficient than a car and less polluting, as powerplants are larger and can have much better pollution controls and such built in.

How could your argument be based on source code when what I said, and drochaid disputed (and you disputed in turn) was "You may freely redistribute this software, with proper credit given to the original author"? I didn't say "source code," and the point of my post was to say "it would be nice if we had that sort of rights with the software," not just the source code.

And you were wrong, because "open source" has no connotation on what the software costs to download at all (only the source code), contrary to what you said. That is the point drochaid and I have been making.

The biggest problem is that there is very little public transport in the US. Many major cities have only limited bus systems, or none at all.

My original post said "You may freely redistribute this software, with proper credit given to the original author" and nothing about the source code.

Suppose they didn't offer a Linux version. They could still charge money for the Windows version. Under the GPL, at least.

Then you accept that open-source licenses can and do put restrictions on redistribution and the cost of the software itself.

The Reciprocal Public License, approved by the Open Source Institute, puts limits on what you can charge for your modifications and requires you to tell the original developer before publishing a modified version.

They have a "screen" around the light that contains closely spaced wires that are charged with high-voltage electricity. When a bug flies to the light, it hits two or more of these wires and is electrocuted.

No. The GPL is not the only open-source license, and even then, GPLed products can be sold. Take, for example, X-Chat for Windows. X-Chat is released under the GPL, but for Windows you must pay $20 due to the time it takes to port it. Others have taken the time to port it as well, and are free to give away their ports without violating the license. Right. They're not the only open-source software. You can't redefine open-source as "freely downloadable and redistributed" - copyleft clauses are not present in all of the open-source licenses.

I've read that 35 degrees is the best trajectory if you're going for distance, as it also compensates (somewhat) for wind resistance. Although I doubt you'll have a protractor with you to estimate where you should let go.

The point is that most software distributed under an open-source license is available freely and may be freely redistributed. Of course, that's not quite in the license (I wasn't really clear in what I meant) but it's often an implication of it.

I think both parties are guilty of rather stupid actions in this case.

Generally it isn't a missile actually exploding, it's a mockup missile hitting the car and then carefully placed charges inside blowing up.

I prefer license agreements that say "You may freely redistribute this software, with proper credit given to the original author" and nothing else.

I suppose you have a top-of-the-line laboratory with modern equipment?

Gladly. Try this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

TalkOrigins also extensively references its material. Look at whatever bits you find interesting, but don't just ignore it and continue to provide the same fallacies.

Gladly. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB

That's not a problem. They're well adapted and they don't really need to evolve any more. Please see the Bible. You don't need to act like she's stupid. Nahomadis, you are using the strawman fallacy to a ludicrous extent in your posts. If you continue, I'll have to give you warning points.

You are thick. SkepticLance specifically said "very SMALL change". That's because we haven't known of evolution for nearly long enough. If we had started a genetic study in 2000 BC and measured all changes since then, perhaps we'd notice some larger changes. Try using a reputable source. Et tu. You don't understand the meaning of the term "intermediate form." Perhaps they're already well adapted to their environment.