In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

[Nylonathatep]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/10 ... atar-real/

First time to exploiting Native Nature worshipping Aliens! Yeah go Mankind!

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... ghter?bn=1

This one reminds me of George Orwell's other novel "The Animal Farm."

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... slave?bn=1

This one comes with a warning.

[Randomizer]

But people shoot their computers with guns all the time. :p Example: Trouble Shooting - The AntiVirus. If you've already got a gun why go to the trouble of buying a mallet that you're only going to use once? Computer Smashing 2007. Honestly I'd be more worried about the guy busting the CRTs - those things have lots of lead in them and should not be disposed of in that way.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/ ... named-HLS/

Male students, faculty, and visitors to the Law School’s new Wasserstein Hall will have the opportunity to use the newly christened “Falik Men’s Room”—a cleverly named restroom bequeathed by Harvard Law School graduate William A. Falik.

[CorruptUser]

I didn't get the joke until I realized the name was pronounced 'fall-ik', not 'fa-leek'. I.e., "phallic".

[SlyReaper]

Religion Not Playing Major Role in European Politics Somehow A Bad Thing.

[Plasma Man]

Yeah, it's such a shame for her that she doesn't live in a country where the head of state is also the head of a religion and guarantees bishops positions in the legislature... oh, wait a minute, she does!

[Radical_Initiator]

I always get a good laugh out of people claiming there is such a thing as "militant secularization" - yes, I find nothing wrong with absolutely forcing you to practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) you desire as long as you don't expect me to live its tenets.
If that makes me a militant secularist, so be it. I should also warn you, however, that I am a militant non-murderist as well.

[Dauric]

I always get a good laugh out of people claiming there is such a thing as "militant secularization" - yes, I find nothing wrong with absolutely forcing you to practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) you desire as long as you don't expect me to live its tenets.
If that makes me a militant secularist, so be it. I should also warn you, however, that I am a militant non-murderist as well.

Ehh, not quite.

Secularization is the social de-emphasis of religious values for rational values. In that context "Militant Secularist" does indeed make sense as someone intent on forcing modern/rationalist values on the religiously faithful, and it meshes rather nicely if your religion has the paranoid doctrines that the rest of the world is out to get you and those of your faith and throw you in an arena with a bunch of hungry lions.

[Radical_Initiator]

I always get a good laugh out of people claiming there is such a thing as "militant secularization" - yes, I find nothing wrong with absolutely forcing you to practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) you desire as long as you don't expect me to live its tenets.
If that makes me a militant secularist, so be it. I should also warn you, however, that I am a militant non-murderist as well.

Ehh, not quite.

Secularization is the social de-emphasis of religious values for rational values. In that context "Militant Secularist" does indeed make sense as someone intent on forcing modern/rationalist values on the religiously faithful, and it meshes rather nicely if your religion has the paranoid doctrines that the rest of the world is out to get you and those of your faith and throw you in an arena with a bunch of hungry lions.

Ah. Sorry, then. Perhaps I should stick to lurking.

[SlyReaper]

Yeah, it's such a shame for her that she doesn't live in a country where the head of state is also the head of a religion and guarantees bishops positions in the legislature... oh, wait a minute, she does!

Well the queen being head of the CoE doesn't really impact politics since she doesn't get involved in it. Bishops being guaranteed seats in the house of lords is somewhat more troubling of course. I didn't even know that until reading that story this morning.

I always get a good laugh out of people claiming there is such a thing as "militant secularization" - yes, I find nothing wrong with absolutely forcing you to practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) you desire as long as you don't expect me to live its tenets.
If that makes me a militant secularist, so be it. I should also warn you, however, that I am a militant non-murderist as well.

I have never heard of anyone doing anything violent in the name of atheism (or secularism), so I have no idea why people apply the word "militant" to it. There are of course plenty of examples of people doing violent things in the name of religion. It just seems that anything an atheist says or does regarding atheism is automatically judged to be 100 times more obnoxious and belligerent than a similar thing said or done by a religious person regarding their religion.

Ehh, not quite.

Secularization is the social de-emphasis of religious values for rational values. In that context "Militant Secularist" does indeed make sense as someone intent on forcing modern/rationalist values on the religiously faithful, and it meshes rather nicely if your religion has the paranoid doctrines that the rest of the world is out to get you and those of your faith and throw you in an arena with a bunch of hungry lions.

There's no forcing going on here. It's the exact opposite; undoing all the centuries of religious values being forced on those who aren't religious. If someone wants to practise a religion, that's their own choice, but it has no place in influencing government policy.

[Iulus Cofield]

I have never heard of anyone doing anything violent in the name of atheism (or secularism), so I have no idea why people apply the word "militant" to it. There are of course plenty of examples of people doing violent things in the name of religion. It just seems that anything an atheist says or does regarding atheism is automatically judged to be 100 times more obnoxious and belligerent than a similar thing said or done by a religious person regarding their religion.

I seem to recall a revolution in France and another in China...

[SlyReaper]

I have never heard of anyone doing anything violent in the name of atheism (or secularism), so I have no idea why people apply the word "militant" to it. There are of course plenty of examples of people doing violent things in the name of religion. It just seems that anything an atheist says or does regarding atheism is automatically judged to be 100 times more obnoxious and belligerent than a similar thing said or done by a religious person regarding their religion.

I seem to recall a revolution in France and another in China...

I thought my grasp of history was okay, but I'm at a loss here. Care to elaborate?

[eran_rathan]

I always get a good laugh out of people claiming there is such a thing as "militant secularization" - yes, I find nothing wrong with absolutely forcing you to practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) you desire as long as you don't expect me to live its tenets.
If that makes me a militant secularist, so be it. I should also warn you, however, that I am a militant non-murderist as well.

Ehh, not quite.

Secularization is the social de-emphasis of religious values for rational values. In that context "Militant Secularist" does indeed make sense as someone intent on forcing modern/rationalist values on the religiously faithful, and it meshes rather nicely if your religion has the paranoid doctrines that the rest of the world is out to get you and those of your faith and throw you in an arena with a bunch of hungry lions.

I think the term you are looking for is Militant Agnostic (our motto: I don't know, and you don't either!").

Welcome to the parade, comrade!

[Dark567]

I have never heard of anyone doing anything violent in the name of atheism (or secularism), so I have no idea why people apply the word "militant" to it. There are of course plenty of examples of people doing violent things in the name of religion. It just seems that anything an atheist says or does regarding atheism is automatically judged to be 100 times more obnoxious and belligerent than a similar thing said or done by a religious person regarding their religion.

I seem to recall a revolution in France and another in China...

Honestly France and China was done more in the name of democracy and communism, respectively, than in the name of secularism or atheism.

[eran_rathan]

I have never heard of anyone doing anything violent in the name of atheism (or secularism), so I have no idea why people apply the word "militant" to it. There are of course plenty of examples of people doing violent things in the name of religion. It just seems that anything an atheist says or does regarding atheism is automatically judged to be 100 times more obnoxious and belligerent than a similar thing said or done by a religious person regarding their religion.

I seem to recall a revolution in France and another in China...

I thought my grasp of history was okay, but I'm at a loss here. Care to elaborate?

The French Revolutionaries were decidedly atheist (or at the very least agnostic) to the point of renaming the cathedrals as Houses of Reason. The other would be the Communist Revolution in China.

[SlyReaper]

I have never heard of anyone doing anything violent in the name of atheism (or secularism), so I have no idea why people apply the word "militant" to it. There are of course plenty of examples of people doing violent things in the name of religion. It just seems that anything an atheist says or does regarding atheism is automatically judged to be 100 times more obnoxious and belligerent than a similar thing said or done by a religious person regarding their religion.

I seem to recall a revolution in France and another in China...

Honestly France and China was done more in the name of democracy and communism, respectively, than in the name of secularism or atheism.

That was certainly my impression. The Wikipedia page on the French Revolution does mention religion in a few places (as in, the revolutionaries were peeved about religion being used to bolster the position of the hated aristocracy), but there's nothing to suggest it was a primary motivating force behind the revolutionaries.

[Dauric]

I have never heard of anyone doing anything violent in the name of atheism (or secularism), so I have no idea why people apply the word "militant" to it. There are of course plenty of examples of people doing violent things in the name of religion. It just seems that anything an atheist says or does regarding atheism is automatically judged to be 100 times more obnoxious and belligerent than a similar thing said or done by a religious person regarding their religion.

I seem to recall a revolution in France and another in China...

I thought my grasp of history was okay, but I'm at a loss here. Care to elaborate?

Actually the one that springs to my mind first is Stalin

Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[87]

However this is... in a roundabout way the point. It's not that the people shouting "Militant Secularists" are in any way accurate, only that they're Godwinning the point by a Nazi-analog. I wasn't saying the "Militant Secularist" thing is accurate, just that it's internally consistent to the 'fundie' position. They can't conceive of a belief system that doesn't come from a central authority, or at least a central rhetorical repository. In that regard they see the shift of society away from traditional organized religions as something that must by necessity be directed by a shadowy central authority that's working to undermine their religious organizations.

Obviously Satan invented the Internet, and has controlling shares of Google and Wikipedia.

The idea that people can come to agreeable positions on ethical issues through reasoned thought or rational debates is an anathema to the common dogmatic concept that human beings are inherently evil and only through an organized religion can they be forced to behave themselves in a civil manner.

[Arrian]

I have never heard of anyone doing anything violent in the name of atheism (or secularism), so I have no idea why people apply the word "militant" to it. There are of course plenty of examples of people doing violent things in the name of religion. It just seems that anything an atheist says or does regarding atheism is automatically judged to be 100 times more obnoxious and belligerent than a similar thing said or done by a religious person regarding their religion.

I seem to recall a revolution in France and another in China...

Honestly France and China was done more in the name of democracy and communism, respectively, than in the name of secularism or atheism.

True, I'm not familiar enough with either of those to say, but I'm pretty sure the violent repression of religion didn't start in Russia until after the revolution was pretty much in the bag. I wouldn't be surprised to hear of anti-religious violence being used as a tool of the revolution in France and China, France especially since the church was so closely associated with both the state and the aristocracy.

But yeah, militant secularists would fit for Soviet communists, along with violence and death for religious peoples under their control. It wasn't their only motivation, but it certainly was one of their motivations. (The same can be said for most religiously motivated atrocities.)

[SlyReaper]

I stand corrected.

[Plasma Man]

Yeah, it's such a shame for her that she doesn't live in a country where the head of state is also the head of a religion and guarantees bishops positions in the legislature... oh, wait a minute, she does!

Well the queen being head of the CoE doesn't really impact politics since she doesn't get involved in it. Bishops being guaranteed seats in the house of lords is somewhat more troubling of course. I didn't even know that until reading that story this morning.

The question of the monarch being the head of the CoE could well have more relevance when Charles gets on the throne. He's already shown himself to be willing to get involved with politics (and talk some absolute nonsense in the process). We shouldn't have to rely on the self-restraint of someone who ends up in a position of authority purely through an accident of birth.

[jareds]

"This is simply someone trying to impose their values on somebody else with the arm of the government."
- Rick Santorum, complaining about the federal mandate under the PPACA that employers provide insurance that covers contraception
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-13-2012/the-vagina-ideologues (about 3 minutes in)

And if anyone knows about trying to impose their values using the government...

[Iulus Cofield]

It's not an imposition when Christian morality is used as the basis of a rights restricting law. It's saving souls.

Besides. The rest of the world owes Christians. You know, for the ongoing persecution in the first world.

[Dauric]

"This is simply someone trying to impose their values on somebody else with the arm of the government."
- Rick Santorum, complaining about the federal mandate under the PPACA that employers provide insurance that covers contraception
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-13-2012/the-vagina-ideologues (about 3 minutes in)

And if anyone knows about trying to impose their values using the government...

This was a beautiful catch. Thanks.

[sigsfried]

Yeah, it's such a shame for her that she doesn't live in a country where the head of state is also the head of a religion and guarantees bishops positions in the legislature... oh, wait a minute, she does!

Well the queen being head of the CoE doesn't really impact politics since she doesn't get involved in it. Bishops being guaranteed seats in the house of lords is somewhat more troubling of course. I didn't even know that until reading that story this morning.

The question of the monarch being the head of the CoE could well have more relevance when Charles gets on the throne. He's already shown himself to be willing to get involved with politics (and talk some absolute nonsense in the process). We shouldn't have to rely on the self-restraint of someone who ends up in a position of authority purely through an accident of birth.

I think it is fair to say that if he tries to do so he will be firmly reminded of what his actual authority is and will either abdicate or be very quiet.

[Iulus Cofield]

I'm not really sure why they keep the nobility around. I can kind of see the monarch being an important cultural thing, but don't they also have a few hundred other lesser nobles collecting money from taxpayers?

[userxp]

Quebec woman ‘cooked to death’

A 35-year-old woman joined a seminar called Dying in Consciousness and was covered with mud, wrapped in plastic, put under blankets and immobilized with her head in a cardboard box for about nine hours. She was found unconscious with a body temperature of 40.5 ºC. She had completed 85 sessions and paid over $18,900.

[sigsfried]

I'm not really sure why they keep the nobility around. I can kind of see the monarch being an important cultural thing, but don't they also have a few hundred other lesser nobles collecting money from taxpayers?
I'm not really sure why they keep the nobility around. I can kind of see the monarch being an important cultural thing, but don't they also have a few hundred other lesser nobles collecting money from taxpayers?

The House of Lords contains 809 members, 90 of which are hereditary, but the position is unpaid.
As for the aristocracy, very little of it ever did get tax money and basically now only small number of the Royal family gets any money. The Civil list, which funds everything except the protection of the Royal family, is (I think) £7.9 million per annum. This though does include upkeep on all buildings which is the majority of there budget.

I am not suggesting for one minute that the Royal family do not cost the UK substantially, they do, but it is not as bad as one might expect.

[bentheimmigrant]

They don't, because we get all the profits from their lands, which are extensive.

[RollingHead]

Quebec woman ‘cooked to death’

With no disrespect meant to the woman, I don't understand why she put herself in that situation. What was the "therapist" trying to accomplish?

[PhoenixEnigma]

Quebec woman ‘cooked to death’

With no disrespect meant to the woman, I don't understand why she put herself in that situation. What was the "therapist" trying to accomplish?

Getting rich, in all likelihood

</cynic>

[Randomizer]

I'm not really sure why they keep the nobility around. I can kind of see the monarch being an important cultural thing, but don't they also have a few hundred other lesser nobles collecting money from taxpayers?

There's actually a good 5-minute video on YouTube that explains why they keep the monarchy around very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw (Dunno about the lesser nobles, though)

I am not suggesting for one minute that the Royal family do not cost the UK substantially, they do, but it is not as bad as one might expect.

Nope. They make money for the government. See video (says basically what bentheimmigrant said)

[Gellert1984]

Quebec woman ‘cooked to death’

A 35-year-old woman joined a seminar called Dying in Consciousness and was covered with mud, wrapped in plastic, put under blankets and immobilized with her head in a cardboard box for about nine hours. She was found unconscious with a body temperature of 40.5 ºC. She had completed 85 sessions and paid over $18,900.

Y'know, I have this fear of being abandoned to die, it's probably the most terrible way I can imagine to die, alone knowing you're dieing, knowing someone you trusted has the ability to save but isn't going to... I hope this 'therapist' is jailed for a really long time.

[sigsfried]

Nope. They make money for the government. See video (says basically what bentheimmigrant said)

Which is only the case if you assume that the Crown would get control of the Crown estates if the Civil List was dropped. It wouldn't, like any other act of parliament the Crown has little choice but to do as parliament requires. And the video goes on to attribute all tourist money to the Royal family. That clearly is crazy.

[Steax]

Teenager plays Call of Duty. Player threatens to hack him and send SWAT over. Teenager ignores. SWAT team arrives to answer their call of duty.

[userxp]

Quebec woman ‘cooked to death’

With no disrespect meant to the woman, I don't understand why she put herself in that situation. What was the "therapist" trying to accomplish?

Channel Melchisedech (a Biblical figure) of course.
It's not really that mysterious. She obviously wasn't intending to kill herself in a slow and horrible way (though some people might actually do that...), she wanted to improve her consciousness, channel her spirit, rebalance her energy or some other new-age nonsense, just like you might put yourself in an MRI machine to get a scan of some part of your body. The difference is that her beliefs about the world were completely wrong, and wrapping yourself in mud does not actually have any benefits (that outweigh the risks).
A better education in science, skepticism and reducing cognitive biases would make it less prevalent, but there will always be a few people who believe crazy things and do crazy stuff.

Teenager plays Call of Duty. Player threatens to hack him and send SWAT over. Teenager ignores. SWAT team arrives to answer their call of duty.

Getting a SWAT team on your house is a serious prank and a good scare, but does not actually have any long-term consequences. On the other hand, if the police ever finds out who did the call (and it's going to be pretty easy unless he was gaming over Tor), he might have a good long stay in jail .

[johnny_7713]

Teenager plays Call of Duty. Player threatens to hack him and send SWAT over. Teenager ignores. SWAT team arrives to answer their call of duty.

Getting a SWAT team on your house is a serious prank and a good scare, but does not actually have any long-term consequences. On the other hand, if the police ever finds out who did the call (and it's going to be pretty easy unless he was gaming over Tor), he might have a good long stay in jail .

Unless the SWAT team is primed to be trigger happy by the 911 call and shoots an innocent person. Wouldn't be the first time it's happened, there's a thread on on it a bit lower down the board. In that case the SWAT team was executing a 'surprise search warrant' IIRC, but still.

@Iulus: I'm admittedly not an expert, but AFAIK the only people the UK's lesser nobles collect money from are tenants that live on their land. I'm pretty sure only the government has the right to collect taxes and the lesser nobles (and greater nobles for that matter) will only be receiving a share of that if they are employed as civil servants.

[Plasma Man]

Sorry, bentheimmigrant and johnny_7713, but you don't know what you're talking about. You're completely ignoring the money raised from the property the nobility own. Charles, for example, owns the Duchy of Cornwall, which has annual revenue of around £16 - £17 million pounds (and doesn't have to pay taxes like any other corporation does).

I've also never understood the argument that the monarchy makes money for the country through tourism. It's not like people get to the top of the Eiffel Tower and say "Well, it's a great view, but the lack of a monarchy really spoils it."

[Arrian]

Teenager plays Call of Duty. Player threatens to hack him and send SWAT over. Teenager ignores. SWAT team arrives to answer their call of duty.

The last line of the story is horrible:

Can anything be done when games are being played on the Internet, a place where even the CIA and Mexican Senate--merely recent examples--are also vulnerable?

Yes, the SAME Internet as the CIA and the Mexican Government! Because the network used to play a game is the exact same as the network that the CIA's home page is on. Then again, I shouldn't expect the news to do any less scare mongering about the Internet than it does in the real world. They always like to throw lines like that in real world stories as well: "The drug dealers were pulled over on the SAME STREET a kindergarten bus was driving along!!1!"

I've also never understood the argument that the monarchy makes money for the country through tourism. It's not like people get to the top of the Eiffel Tower and say "Well, it's a great view, but the lack of a monarchy really spoils it."

Or that fewer people tour Versailles because no royalty has lived there in over two centuries. There's certainly some tourism generated by the royal family, but I would imagine most of that is attending events that the family takes part in. There might also be some increased interest in touring royal sites because there is an active monarchy, but I can't imaging that not being marginal.

[Webzter]

I've also never understood the argument that the monarchy makes money for the country through tourism. It's not like people get to the top of the Eiffel Tower and say "Well, it's a great view, but the lack of a monarchy really spoils it."

Judging by the number of US rags that were running stories about the royal wedding and still are obsessed with Kate and William, I'd say we have a pretty big obsession with the monarchy over here and likely at least some number of tourists are going to Buckingham Palace or what have you because, hey, wedding and princes and princesses and "gosh, this looks just like it did on the cover of People!"

Then again, I don't know if the monarchy is so much good for England's tourism as it is for US publishers

[Zamfir]

Or that fewer people tour Versailles because no royalty has lived there in over two centuries.

Nitpick: the king of France lived on the grounds until 1848, in a smaller palace. The main palace was still in use for royal events from time to time, also under Napoleon III after him. Whether Napoleon III counts as genuine royalty is another question, of course.