The link references the opening statements of a trial in which three people are accused of violating election laws (the story is dated 6 days earlier than your post).
That's a year and six days.
They were in fact convicted, and that's the link I should have given.
However, I see on further review that they made a plea deal and got probation. Which shows how important protecting election integrity is - mandatory minimums for possession of illegal medicines, a slap on the wrist for subverting democracy. Res ipsa loquitur, as HST used to say.
Their recount tested the results under 9 different scenarios of how overvotes and undervotes should be counted. In 4 of the scenarios (including the scenario most consistent with contemporary FL law), Bush prevailed with more votes (woo hoo for Bush supporters!). In the remaining 5, Gore won (woo hoo for Gore supporters!).
Why, yes, they did find different results depending on which ballots were counted.
Calling for recounts only in some areas is part gaming the system, and is irrelevant to the question of for whom more Florida voters cast their ballots. Those recounts that do not have as their standard a "clear indication of the intent of the voter" are irrelevant.
In Florida in 2000, more voters went to the polls intending to vote for Gore than for Bush; despite intimidation and illegal purges of the voter rolls, more voters got to the voting booth intending to vote for Gore; and despite bad balloting technology and practices (which disproportionately affected poor neighborhoods, making a mockery of "equal protection"), more voters voted for Gore than voted for Bush. The fact that Bush was declared the "winner" shows that the voting system was broken; nothing significant has been done to resolve the problems, and indeed they seem to have gotten worse in many ways.
Miami Herald and USA Today recounts, which concluded "...that Bush would have won in all legally requested recount scenarios, and in all other scenarios."
The issue of "requested recount scenarios" is not the point; that's an issue of game strategy, figuring out which recounts to ask for. The issue is the actual number of ballots cast for Bush and Gore, all throughout the state, does not match the results of the "election".
The Wikipedia article's statement about "all other scenarios" is simply inaccurate (I've fixed it):
While the USA Today report focused on what would have happened had the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recount not been halted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Herald pointed to one scenario under which Gore could have scored a narrow victory -- a fresh recount in all counties using the most generous standards.
The study in question also counted only undervotes. Over-votes, where a voter clearly expressed their intention by both marking the ballot and writing in the same candidate, gave Gore many additional votes.
Anyway, in a true "free market", without government intervention, IBM would not exist. All corporations owe their existence to government-issued charters, and IBM also does a great deal of business based on government-issued copyrights and patents. We can eliminate government actions that protect workers just as soon as we eliminate those government actions that enable the concentration of wealth and power: corporations, reserve banking, copyrights, patents, inherited wealth, land and resource deeds...
Anarchists just don't seem to exist anymore. I've been invited to "anarchist" events by "anarchists", and I always point out that organizing is the antithesis of anarchy
No, rule by force is the antithesis of anarchy. There's nothing that says a bunch of anarchists can't have voluntary organization. Anarchy means "no rulers", not "no organization".
When I was a kid the idea of anarchy was pretty universally understood -- no law, no rules, no-one in charge.
The "anarchy" of the punk movement had little do to with the philosophy of folks like Thoreau: "'That government is best which governs not at all;' and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
what about the person whose system of justice says that nothing that THEY do can be wrong? How can you do anything against them?
Well, my "system of justice" says that if you try to hurt people, I'm going to stop you.
Terrible, horrible, weighty news: we're all free. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Just two questions to figure out: who are you, and what do you want?
Of course, phrasing the issue as "punishment" is 99% of the problem. The issue is resolving conflicts, defending the innocent, getting restitution to people harmed, and helping people with problems not do stupid shit. Punishment - causing someone to suffer to balance out some imaginary scale of pain - is pointless.
3) You are an Anarchist, who believes in a set of principles(rules) made by a group of people, which is by definition a "politic", which an Anarchist BY DEFINITION cannot believe in.
Anarchy means "no rulers". It doesn't mean "no rules" - a group of anarchists can certainly come up with a voluntary code that its members agree to abide by.
Once the cameras are in place, people just can't help themselves in using them beyond a scope of a video record to be used to identify thieves in response to car break-ins, for example.
I don't care what you're doing - whether it's an anti-abortion flyer, a pro-abortion flyer, an antiwar flyer, a pro-war flyer, or an advertising for your frat/sorostitute group's drinking party. If you're trying to force it into people's hands, or putting it on their cars (which is what WE get all the time where I work)... no.
How do you force a flier into someone's hand? Do you have the ability to remotely control the muscles in their hand to make it close, or what?
(Of course if someone grabs your hand, warn them to get off, smack 'em in self-defense, then have them arrested them for assault. Fine. You don't need new policies or laws for that.)
Leaving fliers on cars is a common advertising practice. I get ads for clubs under my windshield wipers quite often when I park my car downtown. It's a minor annoyance at worst, hardly calling for expulsion.
I'd trust the guys writing this so-called "report" more if those so-called "peace and justice organizations" weren't fronts for communist groups...
Communist groups? Dude, that's so 1950s. You've got to update your political trolling. We're supposed to be ignorant and irrationally afraid of Muslims now, not Marxists...
...or international terrorist/genocide groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
I'm not willing to be so cynical. I believe in the enlightened ideals upon which this country was built.
Such as the privilege of white male landowners?
There's some nice ideas in the American Experiment, but buying into our national mythology of "enlightened ideals" of the Founders doesn't help. This country was built on the notion of one group of rich white guys throwing off the shackles of a different group of rich white guys so that they could get to be the ones on top, squeezing everyone else.
And if we realize that, we can also see that in many ways we've come a hell of a long way since then. We haven't fallen from some lost Eden of the ideals of the Founders. We've evolved (with various sidetracks and detours and temporary downturns, to be sure) from the ideas of a bunch of slaveholding racist sexist aristocrats, to a time of political equality that would astonish any of them. You no longer have to be white or a guy to be in power! Even poor people can vote (though GOP operatives are working on that one).
Being rich - or at least serving the interests of the rich - is still pretty much mandatory to get into a position of power. But progress will be made. Not by looking backward to a mythical "enlightened ideal", but by looking forward to possibilities for new ways of living.
Say you want to date a system administrator, or sysadmin for short. (And why wouldn't you? They rake in the phat bux for maintaining office computer networks.) The choice is clear: Go for someone specializing in Unix, not Windows. The Unix sysadmin may be slothful and go missing for entire weekends on a Dungeons and Dragons binge. But it's the Windows sysadmin who'll unwittingly hose you with a dangerous virus. And that's far worse.
What, you might ask, could the operating system a person chooses to spend time with possibly reveal? Everything...Windows is designed for people who don't want to spend a lot of time fooling with their computers. It simplifies tasks, giving us pretty boxes to point and click at.
...
Think about these qualities for a sec. Which would you rather have in a lover? Who would you rather have as an intimate -- someone who takes time to understand your quirks thoroughly, or someone who merely pushes your buttons whenever you malfunction? I'm not saying all Windows NT people are obedient, shallow half-wits driven only by desire for material gain. I'm just saying that if you want to fish a decent specimen from the dating pool, you might be better off starting on the Unix side.
What a painful and useless website this product has! Looks like it was desgined by a fourth-grader. Someone, please beat their web staff with a clue-by-four.
Since you've got one of these gizmos, can you give us a quick rundown on what it is and why you find it useful? 'Cause I sure can't figure it out from their site.
Yes, you'll get a better idea of what's going on your way. But do you always want to? Not all code base is a mission in life. Sometimes it's just a problem that needs to be solved.
Is not the title of this discussion "Tools for Understanding Code"? If that's the question being asked, then I assume that getting a better idea of what's going on is what's desired.
If you're just trying to solve a single problem - remove a bug - then yes, by golly a debugger just might be helpful. (Oftentimes not, though, if you're got proprietary libraries and/or multi-threaded code or other timing dependencies to deal with.)
A debugger is a fine tool. But it in no way automates the process of understanding code. It leads you by the hand down only one path; understanding requires that at each junction, you look down the road a little at each possibility. A big display is useful for that, and until I have access to a display the size of a conference table, spread-out printouts will continue to rock.
And unless you have a memory orders of magnitude better than mine, you'll need to take notes. Hey, it would sure be handy to keep those notes right proximal to the code they discuss. But I don't want to start editing the code yet...if only there were a way to make a copy, in a format that was easy to make notes on - even to add diagrams to, which is sure not easy in comments...
They KNOW what he is (they felt his fists on their face, remember?) and on some level, they LIKE it. That's why they're with him. I have talked to many abused women and it's literally impossible to convince them through REASON that "their man" is an abuser. Usually it boils down to "Leave this guy or the state will take your kids." and thy get angry at the STATE.
Bullshit.
I've know several victims of domestic violence. Women often stay with abusive men because they can't get away, financially as well as spatially. They can't afford to leave, or realize that if they do, the abuser is likely to get even more pissed off, track them down, and really lay on a beating.
When they do try to leave, they get no help from the state. A friend of mine had left her abusive husband, he kept harassing her, she called for help - and rather than lock up the ex, they tried to take her kids.
The post was essentially asking what do you do three weeks into it after you've understood what the loop in main does and yet you still don't know what's tied to what and how.
Big stacks of printouts, a large conference table on which to spread them out, a pencil, and the license to kill anyone who interrupts you. Start tracing through the code. Think about options and branches. Make notes on the printouts. Incorporate those notes into comments in the code later.
(Same process can be applied for code reviews. Though in that case, if the code is hard to figure out, you can just throw it back to the developer with a demand for more documentation, so a killing people who interrupt you isn't necessary - severe beatings should suffice.)
isn't that their right in a free and open society?
A "free and open society" wouldn't have Wal-Mart, because the government wouldn't be empowered to create corporations.
Having created these artificial immortal amoral persons, it is up to the state to keep them on a leash.
Furthermore, it's an important principle of our system that the majority doesn't get complete control over the individual. The principle of democracy doesn't trump my right of free speech. Similarly, our economic rules should not be set up such that purveyors of crappy products and services that manage to make themselves popular can completely crowd out quality.
I'm not sure how to take seriously someone who says in 2008 that you're screwed if you want a non-bestselling book. We live in a time of unprecedented availability of books...
If you know that book you want, yes. But with books still in print, it was always that case that your local bookseller could order it for you. Internet sellers add just a little bit of convenience to that.
What internet sellers really add is better access to used books. (I love Powells.com!) Still, you have to know what you want.
The "bookstore experience" is about tripping over some book you never knew existed, would never have thought to look for. At a little used and rare bookstore in Ellicott City, I've found things like a WWII era Naval Aviation boxing training manual; a 1950's dictionary, fascinating for tracking changes in grammar and usage; an edition of Emerson's journals, that flipping though I found relevant to a project I'm working on.
Independent bookstores enable you to know that books exist and to sample them.
The "French Booksellers' Union" - Syndicat de la Librairie Française -
is not a labor union. It's a business organization. They don't fight for worker's rights, they fight for trade regulations that help their business.
Permission should not be, and in my case, *is* not implied.
Back to the door on my house - just because I leave it unlocked doesn't mean you can come in.
Bad analogy. A house is by definition a public place; a server connected to the public internet is by definition accessible to the public. If you don't want it to be accessible, you should not have taken the affirmative step of connecting it to the internet and turning on server software.
To place a computer on a network and turning on services is to say "I want someone to be able to access some things on this computer via the network." Configuring software permissions is how you specify who and what.
If we want to stick with the house analogy, you didn't just leave the door to your house open - by connecting it to the internet and running server software, you invited people in. Then you got pissed because you forgot to put your collection of cheap raunchy porn mags in the locked cabinet, instead you left 'em out on the kitchen table. Too bad for you.
A better analogy than a house is a store - if you leave the door to your store unlocked, yes, you are broadcasting the implicit message "we're open, c'mon in and see what we've got." It doesn't mean you can break open locked cabinets, shoplift, or anything like that; but if a competitor comes in, looks around, and gets ideas on how to set up his own shop, tough tittie.
Just because you have your wireless card set to automatically join any available wifi networks, doesn't mean it's ok, or legal. That's along the same lines of setting your cruise control to 65mph when the speed limit is 55mph, and arguing when you're pulled over that it's OK, beause the road didn't limit their speed. After all, the road is public space.
No. It's along the lines of setting your cruise control to 65mph under circumstances where there's no posted limit, and the default limit for the type of road you're on is 65. Then a cop pulls you over and says "we made the limit 55 here but didn't bother to post it."
The default on a computer network is that if you can access it without having to crack some security measure, you have permission to access it.
don't give me crap about "kids have a right to privacy." They don't, especially when it comes to communication with strangers.
If we're teaching kids that they don't have a right to privacy, it's no wonder they don't value it as adults. Now I see why there's been so little uproar over Big Daddy Government listening in our phone calls.
Sure, newborns have no right to privacy, couldn't even understand the concept. But the right of privacy doesn't suddenly switch on at 18. It's a continuous function of maturation.
I loved it when the religious nuts (not affiliated with the university in any way) would come on campus and hold up a sign about Jesus, and be surrounded and incessantly attacked by the "open minded", "tolerant", "free thinking" liberals, telling them that they weren't welcome there (public property, peaceful demonstration), that their beliefs were wrong, etc. etc.
Being open minded, tolerant, and free thinking in no way implies an obligation to not respond to stupid, close-minded, or intolerant expression.
I support the right of the KKK to march down the street. I also support my right to stand on the sidewalk and tell them they're a bunch of idiots as they pass by.
Back in my college days (at a major public university in a "blue" state), when the religious nuts showed up, sure, I'd go down and debate them, keep them from sucking vulnerable students into their cult. But it was an open forum of ideas. Had anyone attempted to forcibly silence them, I would have come to their defense. And I didn't go round harassing the meetings of the Baptist Student Union.
(Though I do recall campus conservatives acting against the formation of a Pagan Student Union. And I don't think we even had an Atheist Student Union.)
Slashdot Mirror
That's a year and six days.
They were in fact convicted, and that's the link I should have given.
However, I see on further review that they made a plea deal and got probation. Which shows how important protecting election integrity is - mandatory minimums for possession of illegal medicines, a slap on the wrist for subverting democracy. Res ipsa loquitur, as HST used to say.
Why, yes, they did find different results depending on which ballots were counted.
Calling for recounts only in some areas is part gaming the system, and is irrelevant to the question of for whom more Florida voters cast their ballots. Those recounts that do not have as their standard a "clear indication of the intent of the voter" are irrelevant.
A statewide recounts where all undervotes and overvotes were considered is the only relevant issue here. Under five different criteria of "clear indicaton of the voter", Gore comes out ahead on four of them, only losing in one where subjective factors of what constitutes a valid mark on optical scan ballots come into play.
In Florida in 2000, more voters went to the polls intending to vote for Gore than for Bush; despite intimidation and illegal purges of the voter rolls, more voters got to the voting booth intending to vote for Gore; and despite bad balloting technology and practices (which disproportionately affected poor neighborhoods, making a mockery of "equal protection"), more voters voted for Gore than voted for Bush. The fact that Bush was declared the "winner" shows that the voting system was broken; nothing significant has been done to resolve the problems, and indeed they seem to have gotten worse in many ways.
The issue of "requested recount scenarios" is not the point; that's an issue of game strategy, figuring out which recounts to ask for. The issue is the actual number of ballots cast for Bush and Gore, all throughout the state, does not match the results of the "election".
The Wikipedia article's statement about "all other scenarios" is simply inaccurate (I've fixed it):
The study in question also counted only undervotes. Over-votes, where a voter clearly expressed their intention by both marking the ballot and writing in the same candidate, gave Gore many additional votes.
Until a media consortium hired independent assessors to evaluate the ballots, and found that the Gore got more than Bush votes in Florida in 2000.
As for Ohio, people went to jail for rigging the recount.
Which demonstrates that official recounts of a limited number of ballots may not tell the whole story.
The U.S. electoral system is no more reliable than that of the Ukraine or Kenya. But Americans are much more complacent about it.
Markets can't do any "right", either.
Anyway, in a true "free market", without government intervention, IBM would not exist. All corporations owe their existence to government-issued charters, and IBM also does a great deal of business based on government-issued copyrights and patents. We can eliminate government actions that protect workers just as soon as we eliminate those government actions that enable the concentration of wealth and power: corporations, reserve banking, copyrights, patents, inherited wealth, land and resource deeds...
No, rule by force is the antithesis of anarchy. There's nothing that says a bunch of anarchists can't have voluntary organization. Anarchy means "no rulers", not "no organization".
The "anarchy" of the punk movement had little do to with the philosophy of folks like Thoreau: "'That government is best which governs not at all;' and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
Well, my "system of justice" says that if you try to hurt people, I'm going to stop you.
Terrible, horrible, weighty news: we're all free. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Just two questions to figure out: who are you, and what do you want?
There's no authority compelling people to participate in the ongoing political primaries, yet many do so.
Somebody in the community volunteers to do it. See for example the notion of "Shanti Sena" in the "Rainbow Family".
Of course, phrasing the issue as "punishment" is 99% of the problem. The issue is resolving conflicts, defending the innocent, getting restitution to people harmed, and helping people with problems not do stupid shit. Punishment - causing someone to suffer to balance out some imaginary scale of pain - is pointless.
Anarchy means "no rulers". It doesn't mean "no rules" - a group of anarchists can certainly come up with a voluntary code that its members agree to abide by.
Perfect example of this from China, where a couple who were videotaped hugging and kissing by subway "security" cameras, are suing subway's operator after the video was uploaded to Youtube.
How do you force a flier into someone's hand? Do you have the ability to remotely control the muscles in their hand to make it close, or what?
(Of course if someone grabs your hand, warn them to get off, smack 'em in self-defense, then have them arrested them for assault. Fine. You don't need new policies or laws for that.)
Leaving fliers on cars is a common advertising practice. I get ads for clubs under my windshield wipers quite often when I park my car downtown. It's a minor annoyance at worst, hardly calling for expulsion.
Communist groups? Dude, that's so 1950s. You've got to update your political trolling. We're supposed to be ignorant and irrationally afraid of Muslims now, not Marxists...
See, now that's more like it.
Such as the privilege of white male landowners?
There's some nice ideas in the American Experiment, but buying into our national mythology of "enlightened ideals" of the Founders doesn't help. This country was built on the notion of one group of rich white guys throwing off the shackles of a different group of rich white guys so that they could get to be the ones on top, squeezing everyone else.
And if we realize that, we can also see that in many ways we've come a hell of a long way since then. We haven't fallen from some lost Eden of the ideals of the Founders. We've evolved (with various sidetracks and detours and temporary downturns, to be sure) from the ideas of a bunch of slaveholding racist sexist aristocrats, to a time of political equality that would astonish any of them. You no longer have to be white or a guy to be in power! Even poor people can vote (though GOP operatives are working on that one).
Being rich - or at least serving the interests of the rich - is still pretty much mandatory to get into a position of power. But progress will be made. Not by looking backward to a mythical "enlightened ideal", but by looking forward to possibilities for new ways of living.
Reminds me of this old column by Joab Jackson:
What a painful and useless website this product has! Looks like it was desgined by a fourth-grader. Someone, please beat their web staff with a clue-by-four.
Since you've got one of these gizmos, can you give us a quick rundown on what it is and why you find it useful? 'Cause I sure can't figure it out from their site.
Is not the title of this discussion "Tools for Understanding Code"? If that's the question being asked, then I assume that getting a better idea of what's going on is what's desired.
If you're just trying to solve a single problem - remove a bug - then yes, by golly a debugger just might be helpful. (Oftentimes not, though, if you're got proprietary libraries and/or multi-threaded code or other timing dependencies to deal with.)
A debugger is a fine tool. But it in no way automates the process of understanding code. It leads you by the hand down only one path; understanding requires that at each junction, you look down the road a little at each possibility. A big display is useful for that, and until I have access to a display the size of a conference table, spread-out printouts will continue to rock.
And unless you have a memory orders of magnitude better than mine, you'll need to take notes. Hey, it would sure be handy to keep those notes right proximal to the code they discuss. But I don't want to start editing the code yet...if only there were a way to make a copy, in a format that was easy to make notes on - even to add diagrams to, which is sure not easy in comments...
Bullshit.
I've know several victims of domestic violence. Women often stay with abusive men because they can't get away, financially as well as spatially. They can't afford to leave, or realize that if they do, the abuser is likely to get even more pissed off, track them down, and really lay on a beating.
When they do try to leave, they get no help from the state. A friend of mine had left her abusive husband, he kept harassing her, she called for help - and rather than lock up the ex, they tried to take her kids.
The whole thing is an example of learned helplessness.
Big stacks of printouts, a large conference table on which to spread them out, a pencil, and the license to kill anyone who interrupts you. Start tracing through the code. Think about options and branches. Make notes on the printouts. Incorporate those notes into comments in the code later.
(Same process can be applied for code reviews. Though in that case, if the code is hard to figure out, you can just throw it back to the developer with a demand for more documentation, so a killing people who interrupt you isn't necessary - severe beatings should suffice.)
A "free and open society" wouldn't have Wal-Mart, because the government wouldn't be empowered to create corporations.
Having created these artificial immortal amoral persons, it is up to the state to keep them on a leash.
Furthermore, it's an important principle of our system that the majority doesn't get complete control over the individual. The principle of democracy doesn't trump my right of free speech. Similarly, our economic rules should not be set up such that purveyors of crappy products and services that manage to make themselves popular can completely crowd out quality.
When you consider that every piece of cheap crap on the shelves at Wal-Mart comes with loss of American manufacturing jobs, abuse of Wal-Mart employees, support of the brutal Chinese government, and environmental devastation from Chinese industrialization - plus costs to local governments in both direct subsidies to Wal-Mart and in providing the infrastructure that makes their big boxes possible - you might see that the actual cost is a lot higher than the shelf price.
Shopping at Wal-Mart hurts America.
If you know that book you want, yes. But with books still in print, it was always that case that your local bookseller could order it for you. Internet sellers add just a little bit of convenience to that.
What internet sellers really add is better access to used books. (I love Powells.com!) Still, you have to know what you want.
The "bookstore experience" is about tripping over some book you never knew existed, would never have thought to look for. At a little used and rare bookstore in Ellicott City, I've found things like a WWII era Naval Aviation boxing training manual; a 1950's dictionary, fascinating for tracking changes in grammar and usage; an edition of Emerson's journals, that flipping though I found relevant to a project I'm working on.
Independent bookstores enable you to know that books exist and to sample them.
The "French Booksellers' Union" - Syndicat de la Librairie Française - is not a labor union. It's a business organization. They don't fight for worker's rights, they fight for trade regulations that help their business.
Bad analogy. A house is by definition a public place; a server connected to the public internet is by definition accessible to the public. If you don't want it to be accessible, you should not have taken the affirmative step of connecting it to the internet and turning on server software.
To place a computer on a network and turning on services is to say "I want someone to be able to access some things on this computer via the network." Configuring software permissions is how you specify who and what.
If we want to stick with the house analogy, you didn't just leave the door to your house open - by connecting it to the internet and running server software, you invited people in. Then you got pissed because you forgot to put your collection of cheap raunchy porn mags in the locked cabinet, instead you left 'em out on the kitchen table. Too bad for you.
A better analogy than a house is a store - if you leave the door to your store unlocked, yes, you are broadcasting the implicit message "we're open, c'mon in and see what we've got." It doesn't mean you can break open locked cabinets, shoplift, or anything like that; but if a competitor comes in, looks around, and gets ideas on how to set up his own shop, tough tittie.
No. It's along the lines of setting your cruise control to 65mph under circumstances where there's no posted limit, and the default limit for the type of road you're on is 65. Then a cop pulls you over and says "we made the limit 55 here but didn't bother to post it."
The default on a computer network is that if you can access it without having to crack some security measure, you have permission to access it.
If we're teaching kids that they don't have a right to privacy, it's no wonder they don't value it as adults. Now I see why there's been so little uproar over Big Daddy Government listening in our phone calls.
Sure, newborns have no right to privacy, couldn't even understand the concept. But the right of privacy doesn't suddenly switch on at 18. It's a continuous function of maturation.
Standardization and unambiguity are different beasts.
Being open minded, tolerant, and free thinking in no way implies an obligation to not respond to stupid, close-minded, or intolerant expression.
I support the right of the KKK to march down the street. I also support my right to stand on the sidewalk and tell them they're a bunch of idiots as they pass by.
Back in my college days (at a major public university in a "blue" state), when the religious nuts showed up, sure, I'd go down and debate them, keep them from sucking vulnerable students into their cult. But it was an open forum of ideas. Had anyone attempted to forcibly silence them, I would have come to their defense. And I didn't go round harassing the meetings of the Baptist Student Union.
(Though I do recall campus conservatives acting against the formation of a Pagan Student Union. And I don't think we even had an Atheist Student Union.)