Slashdot Mirror

If anyone is interested in the story from the campus paper (Minnesota Daily), here it is:

U student suspended after threatening remarks on Facebook

There is a citation on wikipedia which might be a dead link now.
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/01/31/66888

Hamas won majority election in 2006 before any major conflicts with Fatah.

I do not support Hamas but the reason Hamas is so popular among Palestinians -- and don't kind yourself they are -- is because of their social programs. Hamas has done more for the Palestinian people than any other political entity in the region; building schools, hospitals, and smuggling food for starving Palestinian families (and making it clear that Hamas is responsible for these improvements, even putting their name on schools / hospitals that they build). They are not supported because of their stance wit Israel, calling for Israel's destruction. They are supported because of what they have done at home. Hamas has done a very good job gaining support in the region. Sadly this is probably at a cost to the Palestinian people because Hamas is not friendly internationally.

For more information please read,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah-Hamas_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

You state these Christians have a "burning haterd" for atheists. If this is the case they are probably not Christians at all.

The problem is that I don't think these people are particularly unique. I'm reminded of this survey (another story here). Some choice quotes from supposedly "reasonable" people:

'Many of those interviewed saw atheists as cultural elitists, amoral materialists, or given to criminal behavior or drugs. She states, "Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good."'

Cole Ries, the president of the Maranatha Christian Fellowship: "Still, I don't believe that anybody is really an atheist. I believe that deep down everyone knows there is a god."" [how idiotic and arrogant is that??]

'First-year pharmacy student Amanda Wawrzynia, however, found the study reasonable. She said she would have ranked atheists at the bottom of the list of those sharing the same vision of American society. "I would rather have my kids marry someone of a different religion than someone who has none," she said.'

I think the fundamental problem is that Christianity has as a core concept to preach and convert others. Atheists have no investment in converting Christians, but Christians have a huge investment in converting atheists. It's part of the core mission. And if you're not a believer -- if you actually reject the whole idea of God -- then you are an agent of Satan who may lead others astray. In other words, if you're not with God, then you're against God. It interferes with the Christian mission to "save" people from hell and damnation.

In a way, I can kind of understand: if you really believe in God, then you really believe someone's soul is in mortal danger. The stakes could not be higher. And some atheist comes along to poison your community and possibly lead your children to hell! Looked at it that way, an atheist is worse than a child molester!

And this is the problem I have with religion in general and Christianity in particular. The more seriously you believe it, the more it is required of you to persecute nonbelievers, lest they lead "even one soul" into damnation. What's a bit of persecution compared to eternal damnation of one of your friends or family? Is it worth the risk to even get near an atheist? At least some other religions believe in God -- maybe God will cut them some slack.

No disrespect to you, but I take hope in the fact that atheism grows stronger and stronger, and its more and more socially acceptable to declare yourself one, despite all the hatred that surrounds it. I'd like to see that before this century is out (and hopefully I'll see it), atheists will be the majority and humanity can finally cast off the legacy of superstition. Unfortunately, religion is just intrinsically a corrupting and evil influence.

only six percent said they don't believe in a God at all. Just 3 percent of the public self-identifies as atheist, suggesting that the term may carry some stigma. Still, the poll suggests that the public's tolerance of this small minority has increased in recent years.

This is bullshit. There is no tolerance of atheists.

From another article that made the rounds only last year:

From the article.

only six percent said they don't believe in a God at all. Just 3 percent of the public self-identifies as atheist, suggesting that the term may carry some stigma. Still, the poll suggests that the public's tolerance of this small minority has increased in recent years.

This is bullshit. There is no tolerance of atheists.

From an article that made the rounds only last year:

Based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households and in-depth interviews with more than 140 people, researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as "sharing their vision of American society." Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists. Is that tolerance? The average american doesn't even want you to marry their children if you are an atheist or agnostic. And as much as it always seems like there is nothing religious people hate more than gay people, they actually hate atheists even more!

Oh, yes. Such tolerance! And yet these are the same assholes that are always going around telling us how Christianity is a minority in this country today and how religious people are persecuted.

I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. But you can bet your damn ass that I am hesitant to admit that to anyone who asks me in person unless I have a really good idea of how that person will react. Otherwise - at the best - I might find myself being locked into a two hour discussion trying to explain to the ignorant bastards why I can be agnostic and still not go on a murderous rampage - because in the mind of religious people, the only thing keeping them from slaughtering people wholesale is that their god might not like it.

So.. tolerance toward atheists and agnostics? Bullshit.

Based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households and in-depth interviews with more than 140 people, researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as "sharing their vision of American society." Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists.

Is that tolerance? The average American doesn't even want you to marry their children if you are an atheist or agnostic. And as much as it always seems like there is nothing religious people hate more than gay people, they actually hate atheists even more!

Oh, yes. Such tolerance! And yet these are the same assholes that are always going around telling us how Christianity is a minority in this country today and how religious people are persecuted.

I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. But you can bet your damn ass that I am hesitant to admit that to anyone who asks me in person unless I have a really good idea of how that person will react. Otherwise - at the best - I might find myself being locked into a two hour discussion trying to explain to the ignorant bastards why I can be agnostic and still not go on a murderous rampage - because in the mind of religious people, the only thing keeping them from slaughtering people wholesale is that their god might not like it. Yet atheists and agnostics are the ones who have no morality, are responsible for all the brutality the religious people and their delinquent children commit and are selfish. What the fuck?!

So.. tolerance toward atheists and agnostics? Bullshit.

Also from the a

only six percent said they don't believe in a God at all. Just 3 percent of the public self-identifies as atheist, suggesting that the term may carry some stigma. Still, the poll suggests that the public's tolerance of this small minority has increased in recent years.

This is bullshit. There is no tolerance of atheists.

From another article that made the rounds only last year:

From the article.

only six percent said they don't believe in a God at all. Just 3 percent of the public self-identifies as atheist, suggesting that the term may carry some stigma. Still, the poll suggests that the public's tolerance of this small minority has increased in recent years.

This is bullshit. There is no tolerance of atheists.

From an article that made the rounds only last year:

Based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households and in-depth interviews with more than 140 people, researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as "sharing their vision of American society." Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists. Is that tolerance? The average american doesn't even want you to marry their children if you are an atheist or agnostic. And as much as it always seems like there is nothing religious people hate more than gay people, they actually hate atheists even more!

Oh, yes. Such tolerance! And yet these are the same assholes that are always going around telling us how Christianity is a minority in this country today and how religious people are persecuted.

I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. But you can bet your damn ass that I am hesitant to admit that to anyone who asks me in person unless I have a really good idea of how that person will react. Otherwise - at the best - I might find myself being locked into a two hour discussion trying to explain to the ignorant bastards why I can be agnostic and still not go on a murderous rampage - because in the mind of religious people, the only thing keeping them from slaughtering people wholesale is that their god might not like it.

So.. tolerance toward atheists and agnostics? Bullshit.

Based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households and in-depth interviews with more than 140 people, researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as "sharing their vision of American society." Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists.

Is that tolerance? The average American doesn't even want you to marry their children if you are an atheist or agnostic. And as much as it always seems like there is nothing religious people hate more than gay people, they actually hate atheists even more!

Oh, yes. Such tolerance! And yet these are the same assholes that are always going around telling us how Christianity is a minority in this country today and how religious people are persecuted.

I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. But you can bet your damn ass that I am hesitant to admit that to anyone who asks me in person unless I have a really good idea of how that person will react. Otherwise - at the best - I might find myself being locked into a two hour discussion trying to explain to the ignorant bastards why I can be agnostic and still not go on a murderous rampage - because in the mind of religious people, the only thing keeping them from slaughtering people wholesale is that their god might not like it. Yet atheists and agnostics are the ones who have no morality, are responsible for all the brutality the religious people and their delinquent children commit and are selfish. What the fuck?!

So.. tolerance toward atheists and agnostics? Bullshit.

Also from the a

Of course not, since American's just love atheists!

Seriously, atheists are the most distrusted minority in the USA. Some decades after our first black, lesbian, muslim president we might see an atheist president, but I seriously doubt it.

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686

More likely there won't be an atheist president. We don't even have an atheist member of congress.

BTW I saw an interview with Gates, he is clearly an atheist, who was resorting to a political song and dance to avoid the A-word, much like almost any US figure in the public eye who might be an atheist. Who has the stones to be outed as an atheist? clearly not Bill G.

This

message is to every musician speaking out against file sharing:
get your facts straight, and stop regurgitating everything the major label tells you.
Anyone still clinging to the cage-format for music is either a middleman or lazy. Squidnecks

You major label suckers make me laugh
Do you really think your label would come out and say, "Hey we cut your paycheck in half because you've got to help pay for the 250 billion copies we give away. Have they mentioned when they cut new releases by 25% sales dropped 4.1% and they blamed it on P2P? Have they mentioned that they responded to that drop by raising the cost of your CD $1 every year? Does that seem like a good business move to you? Or does that smell like fear?
Ask yourself what kind of business would cut research and development first? I'll tell you: the business that's about to make it's bed up in a mother fuckin hearse.
While Hilary Rosen and the RIAA are trying to convince you that free listeners are a bad thing, those same five labels that pay them are charging you $500,000 to buy you spins
While you're negotiating whether or not the latest Napster pays you 1/3 of a cent per download, Comcast and AOL are turning the information highway into a toll road.
you know the end is near when Britney Spears is calling it a moral issue
they've positioned you right between their wallets and your fans
they can't really expect to turn the tide with a few pathetic lawsuits
So you gotta ask yourself how does one stop a flood? You build a damn.
IT'S THE ISPs, IT'S THE ISPs!
Comcast will have every last consumer on their knees
starting with 5.3 million subscribers to cable access high speed
they own the wires, so they can discriminate with bandwidth and queuing fees
guaranteed monopoly by the FCC so

We're standing on the verge of an artistic cleansing of biblical proportions I say bring it
when the wickedness of big business is great in the earth
and it will even try to sell the waters that it's drowning in
marching two rappers
two rockers
two composers
two programmers
onto a pirate ship
in a free-market flood
until businessmen are businessmen
and art is art again. Rock

this is not an issue of children not recognizing value in art
this is an issue of children recognizing value-less art
getting artists paid doesn't even play a part
The truth is
for the first time since it's creat

Here in Minnesota, that's exactly what they do. It is illegal to attach unrelated legislation to a bill. There was just recently a conceal and carry gun law declared unconstitutional for this very reason. http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/14/64167

I completely agree that this is what the US legislature needs to do. It would almost completely eliminate pork barrel projects and the sneaky, politically motivated manuvering that has so deranged and perverted our law making system.

We need a lean, transparent system because it's obvious that we can't trust our representatives.

Link to photo of new license

We don't have a 'winner takes all' system. You must be in that 99%!

Florida should be able to split its votes, as only Maine and Nebraska can now.

The flaw, however, was not Florida's but the winner-take-all electoral system used by 48 of the 50 states in presidential elections

Florida is a good example of what I'm talking about -- not because that state turned out to make the decisive difference in this week's election, but because more than 2 million voters -- nearly as many as will go to the winning candidate -- had no say in the outcome. All of Florida's 25 electoral votes will go to the other guy.

You have a winner-take-all system for senate and house of representatives as well... and thats even worse than the presidential election... this way you make sure that all minorities (anyone not pro-republican or pro-democrat) are completely disenfranchised...

High voter turnout doesn't guarantee a good election result. Why is it prized so much?

ahhh... the mysteries of democracy :)
seriously haven't you got some kind of civics education in school? how old are you... oh well... here we go.
One good reason that having a large voter turnout is good is that it increases stability. People feel like they had some say in who rules over them . Another good reason for having a high voter turnout is that it helps protect peoples rights. If people can make an informed decision they can vote for the people that will represent them and fight for their rights. If people don't make the effort to understand politics and the underlying reason they have the freedoms they do, they will be apt to lose their rights and freedom. People might one day wake up and find that their rights have been taken from them by a president only actively supported by 20% of the population.
Democracy is not something that is god given, it is something you have to fight for. If you are not willing to fight for your freedom (or just taking the small effort to make an informed decision and voting) you, in my mind, deserve to have it taken away... and you probably will.

essentially voter turn-out is a litmus test for determining if the american people (or indeed any people) understand and appreciate the rights and freedoms their ancestors fought and died to give them.

I'm willing to give the american people the benefit of the doubt and say that they are not ignorant and that they do understand the responsibilities that democracy stows upon them, but that they are merely unfortunate to live in a system that was the first of its kind, and therefore not able to learn from the mistakes of others.

You are right... the european leaders are not perfect, but at least they were elected in a democracy. I'm going out on a limb here, but I take it you are talking about the war on iraq when you talk about europeans "not being able to find their arse with both hands in the dark". You might think that Schroeder and Chirac were acting out of petty ecnomical concerns when they were against the war in Iraq, but the fact is that they were supported in their decisions (by a very large margin) by the people who elected them. You might disagree with the europeans on the war, but you can't claim that the french and german leaders had an ulterior motive.
If you were realy trying to compare the EU with the US then you have probably misunderstood one or two things about europe... the EU is a collection of sovereign nations, that sovereign nations often disagree has NOTHING to do with the failings of democracies.
before you go criticize democracies outside of the united states, maybe you should try to understand how your own country works.

"Ok, perhaps you can cast more light on what he meant when he said this: "Level the playing field before punishing consumers for being the only competitor this industry has."

By 'level the playing field', I'm pretty sure he was referring to the number of times he bought a CD and it only had 1 or two songs he liked. Hence the appeal of downloading Mp3s.

As for punishing consumers, I think he meant it less specifically than is assumed. (We've had a lot of discussion about this before.) They're being punished by locking the CDs. They're being punished by not being able to return CDs. They're being punished by being called thieves. Laws like the DMCA have been passed which can be a legal landmine when doing simple things like making MP3s or DivX copies of your DVDs. (Note: Ripping != piracy.) I'm not sure he meant the jail time for the offenders. He's said before that he doesn't really care a whole lot about the people who make them available. Unfortunately, and this is my own opinion here not NG's, they are the ones that have caused changes such as iTunes to happen. Taking them out means the record industry can do whatever the heck they want without opposition.

"Hell the record labels pay good money just to get whats on those CDs played on local radio stations. Thats hardly a "Big secret"

They play one or two teaser songs on the radio, they do not play every song on a CD.

"WHAT? Microsoft has a monopoly over the Internet??? They wish. I think you are a bit confused..."

Don't forget that I was poking a little fun at your own reference. But just to clarify, I was talking about Internet Explorer. They have a monopoly on the browser market.

"He was talking about an industry having a monopoly, not a company."

It is an oligopoly. Notice labels aren't competing with each other?

"Of course they do. I've got $15."

I see your point, and I accept it to a degree, however there's a large portion I respectfully disagree with. iTunes is the first serious attempt at innovation I've seen in a long time.

"Prices have dropped considerably if you factor in for inflation."

Wrong.

This "Star Wars is Doomed" article is more of the same trolling dreck that Christopher Bahn has been serving up since he was writing for the Minnesota Daily and Citypages.

He writes the same crap in a previous article about the "Friends" last episode. Hmmm, Funny that has not gotten a /. posting.....

Restore balance in copyright law and the problem will fix itself.

Personally I feel that Ashcroft would love to test that envelope.

On the otherhand this does present a case for placing a real value on domain names as company assets.

More troublesome would be to confiscate domains like http://whitehouse.org and gwbush.com which has been critical of the present monarchy. Allege a 'drug' or 'terrorism' charge and seize the domain pending outcome of the trial. This would allow them to shut down that site without looking like they were attacking the FIRST AMENDMENT.

The regular cops do this all the time with assets like cars and land. Local Governments even use that to aid in their finances. Budgeting against predicted seizure quotas Sure they will give back it's 'Value' years later after a civil suit which is even more longer. Or let it 'expire'

If this happens expect Whitehouse.org to be seized under eminent domain.

Odd, a quick google groups search turned up these on the first results page alone:

Hate Crimes Against American Muslims Skyrocket
COLORADO HATE CRIMES ROSE AFTER TERRORIST ATTACK
Spurt in hate crimes against US Muslims
Hate crimes against Muslims increase

It's finally over (well, for me). I voted, though I must admit that much of it wasn't a very informed vote. The entire back side of my ballot was full of boxes for judicial positions, which I had not researched. I think I may have researched the wrong candidates as well in at least one case. The information I found on the web was very convoluted -- I couldn't understand the numbering that they used.

Anyway, for the Presidential race, I voted for Nader. I was surprised to find his checkbox at the bottom. I thought that the ballot was supposed to go in alphabetical order by party name, but I guess it must have been the order in which the people registered to be in the running.

For my state House representative, I voted for Ficus.. There were two choices on the ballot -- Democratic incumbent or a young Republican college student. I'm not a Republican, and the incumbent has been there for many years.

I'm not sure if the line was longer than normal or anything, but I waited for a good while before getting to the ballot box. I expect voter turnout to be up this year, but I also expect Nader to get a better showing than he's been getting in polls lately. I could easily be wrong on both counts.

There has been a lot of worry about GWB on my campus. However, if this story is even remotely true, my companion students have overreacted to the threat. So many people said, ``I can't vote for Nader because of the Supreme Court.'' If it turns out that 90% of the vote went to Gore around here, then they need to re-examine their reasons, I think. (Obviously, 20 people is an insanely small sample)

The machine at my voting location was broken. Apparently it was brand-new (and apparently untested). Anyway, I just hope they can count everything up okay.
--

I saw this in my college's newspaper (University of Minnesota's MN DAILY) YESTERDAY.

This cartoon summarizes the posting for those that don't wish to read it!

Some info on Katz's visit to the University of Minnesota. Also, more info on the classes he's teaching while he's here.

--

Some info on Katz's visit to the University of Minnesota. Also, more info on the classes he's teaching while he's here.

--

A nit: There were over 12,000 people at the Minneapolis. Everyone there paid $7 to get in. It was the largest Presidental rally *ever* in America. [reference]

I was there, and it was amazing. And I'm a libertarian!

I don't like the choices that are being presented to us by the two primary parties in this country. I'm much more interested in Ralph Nader and the Green party this year. I had been hoping that they would be getting more attention, but the (national) media is still focusing entirely on the Republicans and Democrats.

Nader did get a good reception here in MN when he was here a few weeks ago. He even showed up on Almanac, the local weekly PBS political show.

Certainly, Nader does not completely align himself politically with Ventura, but they are probably closer to what the people want and need than either the RNC or DNC can give the People.
--
Ski-U-Mah!

Back in '95 the University of Minnesota school paper was ordered to give up unpublished incriminating photos of an assult on campus. The editor in chief believed that the press should not become an extension of law enforcement and should be trusted by the public. The editor faced contempt of court charges, but in the end the courts sideded with her. See the full story