Slashdot Mirror


Diskeeper Accused of Scientology Indoctrination

touretzky writes "Two ex-employees have sued Diskeeper Corporation in Los Angeles Superior Court after being fired, alleging that the company makes Scientology training a mandatory condition of employment (complaint, PDF). Diskeeper founder and CEO Craig Jensen is a high-level, publicly avowed Scientologist who has given millions to his Church. Diskeeper's surprising response to the lawsuit (PDF) appears to be that religious instruction in a place of employment is protected by the First Amendment." The blogger at RealityBasedCommunity.net believes that the legal mechanism that Diskeeper is using to advance this argument ("motion to strike") is inappropriate and will be disallowed, but that the company will eventually be permitted to present its novel legal theory.

779 comments

  1. Wow by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess it is Raxco's PerfectDisk to defrag my disks from now on....

    1. Re:Wow by cephah · · Score: 5, Informative

      Otherwise I can recommend this one.

    2. Re:Wow by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I would be very careful where I buy my disk defragger since they (naturally) access the disk and data at sector level.

      The question is, who coded Microsoft Windows defrag framework? The one all forced to use?

    3. Re:Wow by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a fork of Diskeeper.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    4. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The question is, who coded Microsoft Windows defrag framework? The one all forced to use?

      Until Vista, Diskeeper programmed it. Fun, eh? Pressure from the German government and others is likely what caused Microsoft to to switch an in-house solution.

    5. Re:Wow by deniable · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a cut-down version of Diskeeper. The scientology / Diskeeper / Windows connection has caused problems in the past. Here's one link.

    6. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Otherwise I can recommend this one.

      Note that JkDefrag uses the Windows defrag API, so it should be as safe to use as the original defrag. Also, Windows occasionally runs a boot optimizing defrag while your screen saver is on, which tends to mess up JkDefrag's logic. You might want to disable it, if you intend to run JkDefrag.

    7. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good Call. I can say from experience that I prefer Racxo Perfect Disk. It does a better job!

    8. Re:Wow by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would be worthwhile to ensure that everyone you know who might otherwise buy their software know that it funds a confidence scam.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    9. Re:Wow by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 0, Troll

      Otherwise I can recommend this filesystem that does not need a defragger.

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
    10. Re:Wow by Slashdotvagina · · Score: 1, Informative

      Contig (part of the Sysinternals suite) will do this on a file-by-file basis. I have this setup nightly to go through my user directory and defrag individual files which tends to speed the system up a fair bit.

      --
      Advertising that I'm a girl on Slashdot since 2008.
    11. Re:Wow by Dan541 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well I don't want that criminal cult having anything even remotely to do with my system.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    12. Re:Wow by Slashdotvagina · · Score: 5, Informative

      The article you quote contradicts your statement:

      "While it is true that ext3 is more resistant to file fragmentation than FAT, and NTFS filesystems, nonetheless ext3 filesystems can and do get fragmented over time.[14] Consequently the successor to the ext3 filesystem, ext4, includes a filesystem defragmentation utility and support for extents (contiguous file regions)."

      14: "We found heavily fragmented free areas on an intensively used IMAP server which stores all its emails in individual files - although more than 900 GB of the total disk space of 1.4 TB were still available." http://www.heise-online.co.uk/open/Tuning-the-Linux-file-system-Ext3--/features/110398/3

      --
      Advertising that I'm a girl on Slashdot since 2008.
    13. Re:Wow by Trixter · · Score: 1

      ...which is a better product anyway.

    14. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, that's using strong language to describe Microsoft, isn't it? I guess if the shoe fits...

    15. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can also recommend this filesystem, and the primary OS that uses it. No defragging necessary.

    16. Re:Wow by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Your actually willing to dump a product that you already tested and found worthy for your uses because the bosses of the company who makes it are brainwashed?

      As long as they don't kill kittens or put kids in sweat shops or something like that, I don't think it would be worth changing products over this. It seems like your making too much of a ordeal out of it. Who cares if they want people with certain beliefs working with them.

    17. Re:Wow by WCD_Thor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, I'll avoid disk keeper software from now on. I think it came with my thinkpad though, ugh. Religions, all of the, make me scared for humanity, this one is just silly.

    18. Re:Wow by mail2345 · · Score: 2, Informative

      So what if, for reasons beyond my control, I had to keep windows?

    19. Re:Wow by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is nonsense. EVT3 is no more immune to fragmentation than any other filesystem. Wow, it has clustered allocations! HFS has had those since 1986. And guess what? It doesn't fix the problem.

      Until seek times fall to zero (i.e. SSDs), there will still be a reason to defragment in rare cases. Note that for the most part there hasn't been any reason to defragment any filesystem in years.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    20. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Checks to see what I have installed...*
      Yay! PerfectDisk!

    21. Re:Wow by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Huh? Since when does Windows defrag run on anything but MS Windows? How am I forced to use it?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:Wow by PalmKiller · · Score: 4, Funny

      No Kidding, diskeeper is most likely based on alien technology that can be used to take over the planet at some point. Or they will all drink some spiked coolaid and go up in the mothership leaving us with no technical support.

    23. Re:Wow by FictionPimp · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean no defragging tools to do the necessary defrag.

      Sure if you only work with small files HFS takes care of itself. But with the large files some of us work with the filesystem will not defrag them. And you can start to hear the seeking growing over time.

    24. Re:Wow by 644bd346996 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even with negligible seek times, defragging can improve the effectiveness of prefetching.

    25. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, yes, actually. If I'm opposed to the owners of a company actively contributing millions of dollars to a cause I strongly disagree with, I would discontinue funding this person's personal wealth. I also would not, if given the opportunity, to work for such an individual.

      I would also look for alternatives, since there are almost always an alternative. If none can be found, then I would have to determine how important this product is. I have not found a need for defragging except for in the case of making a partimage of the disk.

    26. Re:Wow by Hungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, rather because a portion of the profits goes to support the Church of Nutjobs umm I mean Scientology.

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    27. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      criminal? historically

      cult? I think the word you're looking for is "Apple"

    28. Re:Wow by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to mention the idea of patronizing companies who treat their employees well over patronizing those who mistreat them. And forced Scientology training is certainly mistreatment.

      --
      This space available.
    29. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh hell I would pay anything to have worked for them.

      It's a cash cow of lawsuit!

      On the negative side, there is the potential to get whacked by the proverbial mob.

      Gosh, its just like playing craps!

    30. Re:Wow by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Some people are forced to use Windows.

      Shocking, isn't it?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    31. Re:Wow by stephenhawking · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So do you avoid movies with Scientologist actors? This would seem to be exceedingly difficult if you like movies. I'd go as far as to say avoiding companies that continue to put out big movies with Tom Cruise in them would be a good thing. Like this new WWII flick he's got coming out. I won't be seeing it.

    32. Re:Wow by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Most clearly it is! Where is Amnesty International when you really need them, this atrocity has to be stopped.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    33. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we should pitch in and make a bad horror/sci fi movie about a computer that goes evil when set up with reiserFS and diskeeper together.

    34. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some countries scientology is considered on par with terrorists and he gave money to them, you sure as hell don't want to fund dangerous people like that.

    35. Re:Wow by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      You watch movies?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    36. Re:Wow by the_womble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most Windows users describe MS with much stronger language.

    37. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Your actually willing to dump a product that you already tested and found worthy for your uses because the bosses of the company who makes it are brainwashed?"

      Not defending the GP here but what makes you think principles come cheaply?

    38. Re:Wow by sa1lnr · · Score: 1

      I use this http://www.emro.nl/freeware/ jkdefrag gui, comes with the latest jkdefrag and some other useful tools.

    39. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      All you need to demonstrate fragmentation is multiple parallel streaming writes, which you can demonstrate on any UNIX-like system easily enough with two dd(1) commands.

      There is a clear tradeoff between fragmentation during writing due to writing out interleaved series of blocks (which incurs a read penalty) and avoiding fragmentation on a sufficiently empty filesystem by doing lots of track-to-track head motion to write contiguous blocks for each file. The latter is an approximation anyway in modern individual drives anyway, and becomes difficult to analyse in multi-drive arrays.

      Almost no modern filesystem will opt for a potentially huge write-time seek penalty in order to improve read times. The general consensus is that whatever is doing the streaming writing may be highly time-sensitive (you don't want to drop frames if capturing live video, for example), and is likely to be somewhat time-sensitive (when will this damn copy finish?).

      The downside is that the trade-offs in contiguous-block-quantums is not so clear; it probably ought to be timed in milliseconds, but generally is some power of two number of logical 512-octet blocks (it can be tuned in some cases -- tunefs(8) for example, or at file system creation time; some APIs allow for tuning with a per-filedescriptor ioctl(2) call).

      Finally, busy filesystems that create and delete lots of files will end up with the free space scattered into lots of individual regions, which will also incur a large write time penalty as the free space fragmentation decreases, which is likely as the disk fills.

      Consequently, Apple introduced (boot-volume-only) automatic small-file "sliding". When the system opens a file that is less than about 20MBytes and it has more than 8 fragments, the entire file will be consolidated by the operating system into a single fragment-free file in a way which heuristically decreases the free space fragmentation. (One heuristic involves sliding "hot" files, the most frequently accessed files, to a region near the start of the volume, and sliding cooled-off files out of that region into a best fit, rather than first fit, part of free space; the assumption is that cooled-off files are likely to stay relatively cool so a relatively slow best-fit search can be done with little worry).

      Other very un-UNIX-like operating systems have similar approaches to automatic background file and free space defragmentation. Most of the free space defragmentation in practice in such OSes is much more aggressive than what has been done in Mac OS X to date, partly because it is less clear to the Apple developers (and the Darwin open source community) that free space fragmentation has a likely penalty when there is more than 5% of a volume free. Free space defragmentation takes real energy (lots of i/o and lots of compute power, and the maintenance of state to deal with crashes/power failures that occur during the process), and where large files must be "slid" this can interfere with a system that is actually trying to be put to use by a time-sensitive user.

      Most other open-source UNIX-like OSes do *no* automatic defragmentation of files or free space at all. Mac OS X doesn't either, on non-boot volumes.

    40. Re:Wow by gaving · · Score: 1

      Haha, imagine actually having to make a point of "defragging" your disks in 2008.

    41. Re:Wow by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't actively seek out actors that are part of Scientology, but if I know that they are then I usually try to avoid it. I can't stand any of Tom Cruise's recent work. Ditto for John Travola but I do admit I've seen a few more of his. Battlefield Earth was watched just to see how horrible it was (it is) as well as Face/Off and Punisher just to see him killed in the movie. While it's not a movie, I use to watch JAG on TV when it was on but once I discovered Catherine Bell was into Scientology, she didn't look nearly as soft on the eyes.

    42. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A merger of Microsoft and Apple?

    43. Re:Wow by ckaminski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ummm.... Isn't Windows defrag just "Technology under license from Diskkeeper?"

    44. Re:Wow by headbulb · · Score: 1

      Note that jkdefrag will try to optimize the placement of files. Which is fine for the first few defrags. It places the largest files (disk hogs) at the end of the disk.

      I recommend moving the biggest files off your disk before any defraging then moving them back and defraging regularly. Then moving the few files that the defrag won't seem to defrag off and then back on. (This may harm the acl's/permissions on those files)

      Then there is a utility from Microsoft to defrag the windows swap file on boot. (a single reboot)

      Jkdefrag has alot of nice features. Such as optimizing the disk and using the windows api. I run mine as a screen saver using optimization 2 which will just defrag the disk without doing any file optimization.

      Read up on it, it's good stuff. But with whatever defrag I have used, it's always a multistep process to get full defragmented.

    45. Re:Wow by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Only if you're doing prefetching in the block layer, rather than the VFS layer, which would be pretty stupid.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    46. Re:Wow by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      FAT is particularly prone to fragmentation. Finding any free block in FAT is O(n), since you need to scan the free blocks bitmap. Finding an optimally-sized free space is even more complex, since you have to scan the entire free space bitmap and then compare the sizes. Most other filesystems use some kind of tree for extents of free space, making this much easier to implement, so they are more resistant to fragmentation.

      FAT was originally designed for small disks, with 2^12 or fewer 512-byte blocks (i.e. 2MB or smaller filesystems), for MS Basic. Fragmentation was not an issue on these disks, since most Basic programs were either small enough to fit in a small number of blocks, or took up most of the disk and were written contiguously, so it was never a design goal. It's not so much that Ext3 is good, as that FAT is horrendous as anything other than a filesystem for floppy disks (where it is not bad, since it has relatively small space overheads). All filesystems suffer from fragmentation, particularly when they are nearly full, but the data layout of FAT makes it very difficult to implement algorithms that try to avoid fragmentation.

      It's also worth noting that FAT predates disk caching, which is one of the big tools used to avoid fragmentation these days. With a decent amount of cache, you can know (vaguely) how big a file is going to be before you write the first byte to disk, which helps when allocating space for it.

      On rotational media, there are a few tricks that defragmentation programs do other than defragmentation too, such as moving frequently-accessed files to the faster parts of the disk, and moving files that are accessed together to be contiguous to avoid seek times between them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    47. Re:Wow by LKM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your actually willing to dump a product that you already tested and found worthy for your uses because the bosses of the company who makes it are brainwashed?

      Yes. That's the wonders of a free market: You influence it with your choices.

    48. Re:Wow by Gaurav+Goyal · · Score: 1

      Or you can use Auslogics Defrag

    49. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      > I guess if the shoe fits...

      Throw it?

    50. Re:Wow by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      What religion isn't silly? Think about it, all of them are, some are simply more etablished and therefore don't sound that stupid.
      The idea that the world is created in 6 days is pretty stupid to me, so is the idea that god is father, son and holy spirit at the same time, yet father manages to talk to the son (to himself?) whom he has send to die for the sins of humanity.

    51. Re:Wow by jthill · · Score: 1

      As long as they don't kill kittens or put kids in sweat shops or something like that

      Do some research.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    52. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hells yeah. I learned that the hard way with my MythTV box. The 1TB drive would occasionally fill up & I'd delete things to free up a couple hundred gigs but I'd notice progressive slowing-down of the machine to the point where videos would stutter during playback w/ an otherwise unloaded machine. I eventually tracked it down to fragmentation. my jaw dropped when I discovered that there's no online or offline defrag for ext3. I made an rsync backup, reformatted the drive as XFS, restored the data and after fixing the drive UUIDs I was fine. Now I run XFS online defrag as a cron job and I DEFINITELY don't use ext3 anymore on any of my machines. I'm skeptical of ext4. I'll take XFS heritage over ext playing catchup.

      Fragmentation is real, kids. not just a myth from bygone generations. and it'll come and rip your head off you when you least expect it.

    53. Re:Wow by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      Do SSDs have caches? Certainly, for hard drives, fragmentation can increase cache misses. If a drive can prefetch the rest of a file, then it may be able to stream it out of a cache with higher transfer speeds than the main storage, be it flash or hard disk platters.

    54. Re:Wow by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why are you saying diskeeper does any of that?

      Otherwise you might as well said look at the sky.

    55. Re:Wow by lordSaurontheGreat · · Score: 1

      On an IMAP server? Gee, perfect case for the use of ReiserFS, though it might murder sendmail and then remove all the crontab scripts from its car ;-)

      --
      Consider yourself spoken to.
    56. Re:Wow by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      It'll defrag your disks in less than 12 parsecs!

    57. Re:Wow by mini+me · · Score: 1

      Does Microsoft hold Windows users at gunpoint? Who, exactly, is forced to use Windows?

    58. Re:Wow by HappySmileMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does Microsoft hold Windows users at gunpoint? Who, exactly, is forced to use Windows?

      People with jobs. You've probably met a couple and never even realised it.

    59. Re:Wow by HappySmileMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He's saying the church of Scientology does it, and the owner of the company funds them.

      If you look into it you'll see a history of child abuse in the Church of Scientology, they claim that it hasn't happened in over 20 years (Not that it never happened) but there've been quiet a few (now ex-)members of the church testifying that it's happened more recently than that.

      As for kitten killing I'm not as sure, just googled and found http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/sp992a.htm, but no idea how many of those stories are true, and I don't really care enough to go and look into them, I've heard of the first story before a few times though and it seems likely that at least that one is true.

    60. Re:Wow by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter which ones are silly and which ones are "trendy". The boss of a company can no more make you do a Scientology indoctrination any more than the boss of a company make you take Bible classes as a condition of employment. The only way that would even CLOSELY be legitimate is if you were working as a help desk for Bible study, or a church. Since Diskeeper's not a bloody church, they can't trample the non-Scientologists religion any more than Ross Perot saying all employees of EDS have to be Mormon.

      The free exercise of religion _is_ provided to individuals... not for individuals to exercise ON someone else. :)

      And whether or not you think religions are silly, they're protected liberties for all Americans. Not just Tom Cruise.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    61. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple is a cult only when fanboys make it so.

    62. Re:Wow by FutureDomain · · Score: 1

      I've tried most of them and I've found it to be the best. It not only defragments, but it also consolidates free space at the front of the drive. It makes my hard drive noticeably faster.

      ~~FutureDomain~~

      --
      Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
    63. Re:Wow by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      XFS has its own poisons. For example, although it's a journalling filesystem, XFS only journals metadata.

      I'll choose filesystem integrity over stopping a little fragmentation any day.

      This means you can wind up with corrupt data in files due to a sudden power loss.

      As recently as RHEL 5 (the last time I ever considered XFS), I have had problems with NUL bytes showing up in files after such a system crash.

      Ext3 journals actual filesystem data (not just metadata).

      I have only seen ext FS corruption _once_ that was not due to a hard drive failure.

      Whereas I have seen very silent XFS FS corruption show up, clearly for software reasons several times, when the hardware was just fine.

      I would agree about using XFS or something else for mythtv data, but only because the recorded video isn't that important (it's a case of storage capacity is more important than data integrity, so XFS is an ok choice).

    64. Re:Wow by Brain+Damaged+Bogan · · Score: 1

      "when it was on but once I discovered Catherine Bell was into Scientology, she didn't look nearly as soft on the eyes"

      that little factoid just made me want to gag her, tie her up and have my way with her all the more

      --
      -- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
    65. Re:Wow by Mozk · · Score: 1

      It seems that Will Smith is a Scientologist too.

      I'm avoiding all of their movies.

      --
      No existe.
    66. Re:Wow by mini+me · · Score: 1

      In most of the free world your employer cannot force you to do anything. You may choose to use Windows to keep your job, but nobody is forcing you to use it.

    67. Re:Wow by uassholes · · Score: 1

      I developed on VMS for over 15 years and file system fragmentation was annoying (as it is with VMS's retarded baby sister; Windows) but never once in over 25 years using *nix have i EVER seen any significant fragmentation.

    68. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XFS dumps those nulls intentionally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFS#Journaling

      It wasn't a little fragmentation. in my case it made the machine useless. poster above shows that it happens w/ multiple streams even if you don't fill up the drive. Fragmentation on ext3 is both unavoidable and unrepairable. It's also insidious in that it slowly accumulates so that a typical user gets accustomed to the latencies, until it gets so bad that they notice it and either figure it out and wipe the drive and install XFS or don't figure it out and wipe the drive and reinstall ext3. Whereas machine instability such that the ext data journal makes up for the inevitable fragmentation is nearly always repairable. Or it at least relegates the ext3 usefulness to a secondary partition to use when you're debugging device drivers or whatever.

      IMHO the usage patterns of the majority of linux users supports XFS as a default filesystem type over ext3.

    69. Re:Wow by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you mean that fragmentation was not an issue only on _FAT_ disks, but fragmentation definitely was an issue on some small discs.

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Pascal

      This made for a different method for saving and retrieving files. Under Apple DOS, files were saved to any available sector that the OS could find, regardless of location. This caused larger files to become fragmented and slowed down access to the disk when loading and saving. Apple Pascal attempted to rectify this by saving only to consecutive blocks on the disk. ...
      The consecutive file saving method also created some problems. Deleted filespace could not be used if it was not at the "end" of the disk (after the most recently-saved file). A utility, charmingly called Krunch, was included in the package to "clean up" the disk by moving files until they were all consecutively stored again.

      (I remember USCD Pascal booting VERY quickly off of 5.25" floppies.)

      Also, this is almost the same as an annoying feature of DVD-RW discs -- in the form that works in regular DVD players (after being finalized), they too can only write to the free space at the end... So you have to delete the end files to regain any space after watching/deleting shows recorded to them.

    70. Re:Wow by Zonk+(troll) · · Score: 1

      Or you can use Auslogics Defrag

      I have to second that one. Also, starting with 1.5.19.330 they added a command line version. 1.5.20.335 adds a scheduler.

      --
      "The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
      End The FED. -
    71. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In most of the free world, a job is a necessity, idiot.

    72. Re:Wow by mini+me · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of jobs that do not require the use of Windows. There are plenty of jobs that do not require the use of a computer, even. A job may be a necessity, but that does not mean that Windows is a necessity.

    73. Re:Wow by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That would be the church of Scientology and not diskeeper right? And diskeeper hasn't been around for 20 years so linking it to them is pretty much fabricating things if they haven't been involved with it in over 20 years.

      As for child abuse, I have seen people claim all sorts of things were child abuse. I remember A kid got his hand smacked once in a store when he grabbed a display and pulled over 20 grand worth of crystal glassware. They said that was child abuse. So if it is still happening, I have to wonder if it really is child abuse, if the parent neglected to stop something and someone else punished them, or if it really did happen.

    74. Re:Wow by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Your (sic) actually willing to dump a product that you already tested and found worthy for your uses because the bosses of the company who makes it are brainwashed?

      Disclaimer: I don't use this product. That being said YES, abso-fuckin-lutely I would dump a product based on the belief systems of the bosses and/or owners of a company! Do you seriously want to contribute your hard earned cash (and a portion of your cash will go to pay the tithes) to organisations such as the Church of Scientology?! Incredible!

      Everytime you make a purchase decision, you are simulateously deciding what kind of world you want to live in. Sometimes the side effects of consuming the more convenient product outweigh that convenience. I would jump through hoops of fire before knowingly buying from a company which forces its employees to become scientologists.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    75. Re:Wow by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Ironic that the user is the cause of just about all windows issues.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    76. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      criminal? historically

      cult? I think the word you're looking for is "Apple"

      What are you talking about?

      Apple are awesome.

    77. Re:Wow by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Disclaimer: I don't use this product. That being said YES, abso-fuckin-lutely I would dump a product based on the belief systems of the bosses and/or owners of a company! Do you seriously want to contribute your hard earned cash (and a portion of your cash will go to pay the tithes) to organisations such as the Church of Scientology?! Incredible!

      Personally, I consider the money not mine after I purchase something in exchange for it. I don't really care what the new owner of the money does with it. It's theirs.

      That being said, I find it disturbing that people are willing to use religious beliefs as qualifiers for commerce. The Zionist have done that and look how far it got them, the holocaust and the current middle east problems can be blames on using religious beliefs as a means to qualify commerce opportunities.

      Everytime you make a purchase decision, you are simulateously deciding what kind of world you want to live in. Sometimes the side effects of consuming the more convenient product outweigh that convenience. I would jump through hoops of fire before knowingly buying from a company which forces its employees to become scientologists.

      I believe it is a matter of freedom. The owners of the company have the freedom to run the company however they want. If they want to employ only secular people, that is their freedom. If they only want to employ Christians or Scientology or people with blond hair, it is their freedom to do so. We don't have a right to take these freedoms away from people. Or we shouldn't. I think it is ridiculous to think that anyone should hold that kind of grude over the freedoms we all share.

    78. Re:Wow by kelnos · · Score: 1

      You may know this, but for the benefit of those here who don't, ext3 does NOT journal anything but metadata by default (so-called "ordered" mode). If you want full-data journaling (and the corresponding performance penalty), you need to mount ext3 with the data=journal mount option.

      In practice, though, you shouldn't end up with corrupt files with ordered mode in the case of a power failure, as the driver will flush changed data to disk before committing the journal for that data. So, you can of course lose data, but your FS will still be consistent.

      But even full data journaling isn't going to keep you 100% safe from data loss...

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    79. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you miss is that the disk I/O load on an ext2/3 system required to generate significant fragmentation is many orders of magnitude greater than that required to totally foul up a FAT system. Give the two file systems identical loads, and ext2 will outperform FAT within a few thousand write cycles.

      A 9Gb ext2 filesystem on my main server, used fairly heavily for two years, had only 4% fragmentation at that point. A FAT-based filesystem with two years of use and no defrags would be described as unusable by most tech support desks.

    80. Re:Wow by pfleming · · Score: 1

      Your actually willing to dump a product that you already tested and found worthy for your uses because the bosses of the company who makes it are brainwashed?

      As long as they don't kill kittens or put kids in sweat shops or something like that, I don't think it would be worth changing products over this. It seems like your making too much of a ordeal out of it. Who cares if they want people with certain beliefs working with them.

      It wouldn't be just the bosses. In this case all of the employees have to attend training sessions for CoS? Employees who don't bend to the will of the religious fanatics are fired? This sounds like religious discrimination to me. Next they'll disclose there is some secret code in there so the Church can figure out who to recruit and the receiver is in Oprah's couch and can only be powered via a piston in the top cushion forcing some famous actor to jump up and down to power it. Just cause I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.

    81. Re:Wow by srmalloy · · Score: 1

      And it's not really a sector not found error, it's just your hard drive being cleared...

    82. Re:Wow by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      But even full data journaling isn't going to keep you 100% safe from data loss...

      Especially since the data=journal implementation is less used and therefore less debugged. Several years ago, I found that mounting with data=journal inside user-mode-linux inside another data=journal filesystem resulted in filesystem corruption on the inner filesystem. The problem went away when I mounted with data=ordered on the outer filesystem.

    83. Re:Wow by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      FAT is particularly prone to fragmentation. Finding any free block in FAT is O(n), since you need to scan the free blocks bitmap. Finding an optimally-sized free space is even more complex, since you have to scan the entire free space bitmap and then compare the sizes. Most other filesystems use some kind of tree for extents of free space, making this much easier to implement, so they are more resistant to fragmentation.

      Can't you just read the bitmap into memory at mount-time and then deal with it there in whatever format you want?

    84. Re:Wow by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      Ironic that the user is the cause of just about all windows issues.

      Sure. If nobody used Windows, there would be no issues.

      Seriously, you've clearly never tried to write an innovative program on a Windows box. It's absolutely painful.

    85. Re:Wow by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      No i have never tried it, hence don't suffer from it.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    86. Re:Wow by RitaSkeeter · · Score: 1

      Diskeeper, JkDefrag, PerfectDisk, UltraDefrag and every other WinXP/Vista defrag program use the Windows API for moving files around. It's not a defrag API, it's a "move this file from here to there" API, and it was not written by Diskeeper, but Microsoft. Only "defrag.exe" in Win95++ was written by Diskeeper for Microsoft. Fortunately Microsoft has cut the Diskeeper connection with Vista SR1, and is using their own defrag program. I think the guys from Sysinternals (Contig, PageDefrag and Winternals Defrag Manager) who now work for Microsoft have something to do with the new defrag utility in Vista. You can find plenty of alternatives to Diskeeper, most of which work better and cost less. Check out "The Great Defrag Shootout" for info.

  2. What the hell? by DurendalMac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't that religious discrimination in the workplace? Seems like a cut and dried case to me. I'm sure the Co$ will lawyer up and try to fight it, but I don't see how they could possibly win this case.

    1. Re:What the hell? by deniable · · Score: 1

      They'll try to weasel around it by claiming it's the same as getting someone to teach meditation to the staff and the instructor just happens to also be a priest. If you keep the religion away from the training, it can be OK. How you do that with the COS 'teachings,' I have no idea.

    2. Re:What the hell? by Luke-Jr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Nothing wrong with religious discrimination. Do you really want to waste time interviewing obvious idiots (or at least people who don't care to investigate the claims of their religion)? Do you really want to consider hiring people who believe it is okay to lie, cheat, and steal?

      Obviously, this is a very backward case, but not because it's religious discrimination.

      --
      Luke-Jr
    3. Re:What the hell? by eosp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then you're a yoga instruction facility, and get taxed as such.

    4. Re:What the hell? by spazdor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's pretty easy. Most of the 'bottom tier' of Scientology is really just self-help books. A vast majority of what they teach to beginners is just about calming the mind and mastering your emotions. The crazy stuff doesn't come until later.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    5. Re:What the hell? by deniable · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly, the COS is only a 'church' for the tax benefits.

    6. Re:What the hell? by EdIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Religious discrimination is ignorant and only bigoted people practice it. You don't have to belong to any of the major religions to be against lying, cheating, or stealing. That Sir, is just offensive and obnoxious. Lying, Cheating, and Stealing are a matter of Ethics, not the exclusive domain of morality.

      Do you want to give out personality tests to help determine someone's ethics and likelihood of lying, cheating, and stealing? Fine.

      Asking them if they are a member of religion A and equating a false answer with, "well this person clearly fondles small pre-pubescent children" is going to far.

      I don't mind burning the Karma her sir. You are deeply offensive and I am calling you on it. Moderators, +flamebait away!

    7. Re:What the hell? by deniable · · Score: 5, Funny

      Self help books have taught me that the best way to make money is to write the self-help books. Scientology really makes that point.

    8. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If you keep the religion away from the training, it can be OK. How you do that with the COS 'teachings,' I have no idea.

      How could you not?

      Unless you are one of those freaks who thinks COS is remotely religious.

    9. Re:What the hell? by fermion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Religious discrimination in the workplace is nothing new. In the united states it just isn't much a of problem because the majority of the people are christian. It turns up though. For instance there was the case where one group wanted time to pray during work time, but the profit driven secural community would not allow it. Such discrimination has become worse over the past few years. For example churches are allowed to accept government funds, funds that should be used in a neutral fashion, but in fact use those funds to discriminate against people who believe differently.

      So tome this a complicated case. Here is guy with a private business, who in this time of successful deregulation and religious tolerance maybe should be allowed to do what the executives feels is necessary for the bottom line. OTOH, they are an american company, and american federal laws says you cannot discriminate against people based on religion, and I think most people would consider such action discrimination. I certainly would consider it discrimination if I had to listen to, for instance, OSteen tell me to pray before I went to buy a cell phone, or pray that the client would accept my deceptive offer, even if I did get paid for such mad ravings.

      In the end, if this guy wants the freedom to discriminate, perhaps he should open a church instead of a bussiness. Given the profit that some churches brings in, he could still sell his software.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    10. Re:What the hell? by M1rth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Cult of $cientology's standard response to ANYTHING is "freedom of religion, nyah nyah nyah."

      Caught evading taxes and breaking into the IRS? No problem - "Freedom of Religion."

      Caught Trying to drive someone to suicide and framing them for crimes they didn't commit? No problem - "Freedom of Religion."

      Making false medical claims? Drag a cross in the door, claim "Freedom of Religion."

      Killed Someone? after removing them from a hospital? No problem - it was "Freedom of Religion."

      Take advantage of a poor man having a stroke and playing "Weekend at Bernie's" with him to badmouth your critics? No problem - "Freedom of Religion."

      Framing people? Lying about them under oath? "Fair Game" is a "Freedom of Religion" practice.

      Ordering someone killed? Sorry, that's a practice of "Freedom of Religion."

      --
      If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
    11. Re:What the hell? by Luke-Jr · · Score: 0

      Religious discrimination spans far more than inclusion-based "only religion may work here". It also includes obvious things such as EXCLUSION "Satanists can't work here".

      Perhaps a better example: you turn someone down because they admit to finding stealing acceptable; they come back with a claim it's part of their religion. Do you, in this scenario, have to hire them to avoid religious discrimination?

      --
      Luke-Jr
    12. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A tenet of scientology is that it's okay to lie, cheat, and steal. The doctrine of "Fair Game" (note that if you're a paid-up scientologist you may have a web filter helpfully installed that blocks or modifies that page).

      It is almost cheesy-movie-villain evil. If someone claims to be a scientologist in particular, they are saying they're fine with that and therefore trusting them would be totally insane.

      That is in marked contrast to real religions, which tend to at least have at their core some variant of "be excellent unto eachother" (even if a power-hungry priesthood fucks it up in practice), the so-called "Golden Rule". While I'm an atheist, I do believe if more people followed the basic humanistic teachings attributed to, say, Jesus or the Buddha, the world would be a better place. If everyone followed the crazed teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, the world would be a nightmarish hellhole.

    13. Re:What the hell? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      And so they can say that they're a religion being oppressed.

      Anyone remember a few years ago when the CoS was going on and on about how they weren't a religion, but a way of living your life that meshed with all religions?

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    14. Re:What the hell? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's like with a 419 scam. Get the sucker in for a few grand and they're more likely to spend a lot more later.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    15. Re:What the hell? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Really? I prefer the printing press in the corner.
      Or having nice conversations with my bank's (and the banks of people I don't like) computers.

    16. Re:What the hell? by Tisha_AH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I ran into a similar predicament at my former employer. Unbeknownst to me at the time of my interview and hiring there was a significant religious component that developed within the management group.
      Our Vice President of operations based many of his decisions on who went to "his" church. Of course, none of this was provable but it became increasingly apparent when he would lead us in prayer at the beginning of our managers meetings twice a week. There were two of us who were not "team players" in this regard, a highly respected director and myself (I managed three different departments and had the highest reviews of any of the managers in the operations group).

      When it came time for lay-off's, guess who was let go, the director and myself. Eventually the director was re-hired as a consultant. I decided to burn that bridge and when packing my personal effects I threw a notepad at the vice president and told him in a long tirade to get fuxed. Also, I refused to provide any future assistance when they called me later to figure out how to proceed on some of the projects I was working on.

      Since this was in a "right to work" state I had little recourse and would not go back, even if they had doubled my salary and given me a public apology. I went on to a different company and made it my personal crusade to steer every customer away from my earlier employer. Sometimes those types of layoffs come back in spades and bite you in the behind.

      Religious fanaticism, discriminatory hiring practices and the glass ceiling are still a major problem in many American companies to this day. I guess that you could fight these practices in court but in the long run, do you really want to work for people like this?

      Let the best talent go to where we are appreciated and our quirks (religious beliefs, the shoes you wear, your not so politically correct conversation or personal convictions) matter the least. They say that it is a different job marketplace today with companies able to pick and choose who they want. It is a fool who does not hire the most capable and talented individuals because of some personal bias caused by their own ignorance.

      --
      Tisha Hayes
    17. Re:What the hell? by Allelophagia · · Score: 4, Funny
      From your last wikipedia link:

      R2-45

      Not to be confused with RJ-45.

      Woah, I've got to be much more careful when terminating CAT-5...

    18. Re:What the hell? by EdotOrg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the obvious solution to this, should they actually have a legal basis, is to require that only NON-scientologists can be employed at a company.

      After all, if the 1st amendment protects religious requirements for employment, isn't the inverse true as well?

      Perhaps this isn't a road they should go down...

    19. Re:What the hell? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Possibly the idea is that receiving mandatory training about scientology (as opposed to being required to practice it) is ok. After all the founder says the company is based on the principles of that "religion". Maybe like a kosher restaurant requiring employees (even if non-jewish) to take lessons on that aspect of jewish religion as it is necessary for their job. Not sure if that's the case here, but if so perhaps it's not so cut and dried.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    20. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please be more respectful to Satanists, there not all bad you know.

    21. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I was with you right up until you mentioned throwing something at your former boss. You might think you were canned because you didn't subscribe to his religion, but I don't buy it. You were probably canned for being a bitch.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    22. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      made it my personal crusade to steer every customer away from my earlier employer

      Hmm... Not just a bitch, but a vindictive bitch. Thanks for posting that, hopefully it will come up if any prospective employer in your future googles for your name.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    23. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you never lied, cheated, or stolen?

    24. Re:What the hell? by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Uh. Satanists as "generic evil religion" is kinda off. At least LaVeyan satanists - silly as they may be with the mythological imagery - are perfectly functional in society and well capable of obeying the law.
      Also, giving children alcohol? (Christians)
      Mutilating babies? (Jews)

    25. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Religious discrimination is ignorant and only bigoted people practice it.

      So I'm a bigot.. big deal. Do you believe in an invisible man in the sky? Then you're a fucking retard. Are your beliefs supported by the scientific method? If not, you're a fucking idiot. Do you rely on Pascal's bet when cornered by a logical argument? If so, you're literally insane.

      Religion is a virus of the mind for those weaklings who cannot accept that we're a biochemical process who one day will cease to function as a living organism.

    26. Re:What the hell? by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 2, Funny

      Though, admittedly the mutilating babies isn't a *special* right to the Jews - everyone in the US is free to do it.

    27. Re:What the hell? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      But Scientology is not a religion, so it can be made a mandatory training program for the company.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    28. Re:What the hell? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Scientology is not a religion so it can be included as a mandatory training program for new employees.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    29. Re:What the hell? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      But it pretty much is. I meditation does have a religious basis. I wouldn't want "instruction" in meditation to be required in my work place.
      But there is an issue of free speech. Someone inviting a co-worker or even an employee to a church function is one thing. Making it mandatory is something else.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    30. Re:What the hell? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      That was before they realised they could defraud the tax system.

      Nice email address btw.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    31. Re:What the hell? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      There are allegations that some judges in California are Scientologists; so it not necessarily as cut and dried as you might think.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    32. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please keep the rebellious teen cults separated from an idealists search of a balance of the good and the evil in the human mind with the goal of liberating man from baseless morality and bringing out the true essence of man, which is one of capability and power.

    33. Re:What the hell? by Whiteox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My mechanic works for the Bretherans'
      He also smokes and owns a mobile phone and listens to the radio, all of which is denied by the Bretherans and is part of his working conditions as agreed on when he got the job.
      He's happy not to smoke, use his mobile or listen to the radio when he's working, however as most of his job is a breakdown service for their trucks on the road etc, he freely smokes, calls and listens to the radio/ipod etc when travelling. They know what he does and he knows that they know, but due to tolerance, both he and his company are reasonably happy.

      There are issues with the Bretherans, especially in Australia where they make large political donations to the right wing conservatives, but otherwise they are harmless*.

      But with the COS? At what point do you say to yourself that the organization you work for (and thus support) is too evil to continue with?
      Every dollar you earn for that organization is going towards their evil ends?
      There are many other organizations that fall into that category where your ethics rub up hard against the corporate mantra. Vegans working for McDonalds?

      So it's more of a philosophical, ethical and moral decision you need to make. It works both ways.
      ---
      *harmless - I've met ex-Plymouth Bretherans who would deny that they're harmless.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    34. Re:What the hell? by Dan541 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It turns up though. For instance there was the case where one group wanted time to pray during work time, but the profit driven secural community would not allow it.

      Damm straight employers pay you to work not pray. If it is on a designated break then that's fine but any other time people should be working.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    35. Re:What the hell? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      It was when gMail first came out. I tried everything I could think of and after everything was taken (including "allnamestaken") I typed this as a joke. It just forwards to my .me email now, though.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    36. Re:What the hell? by Dan541 · · Score: 3, Funny

      So you don't put it on your Resume?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    37. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just a bitch, but a vindictive bitch. Thanks for posting that, hopefully it will come up if any prospective employer in your future googles for your name.

      Huh, who was the bitch again? It's a free market out there. Customers can choose what is right for them. Company standards and processes should cover human emotions coming in the way of business. So, take it as you wish.

    38. Re:What the hell? by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      It's pretty easy. Most of the 'bottom tier' of Scientology is really just self-help books.

      Hmnn, I'd actually prefer people to stick to religion than to self-help books.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    39. Re:What the hell? by Winckle · · Score: 3, Funny

      No his current main email is "animalshavesexwith@me.com"

    40. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bawww! Companies should be run however they want without consequence but people's actions should have extreme and lasting ones!"

    41. Re:What the hell? by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      Yeah, way to see the big picture.

      Say someone is a die-hard Neo-Nazi. Like a Wotanist or some religion like that. They wear a swastika as part of their religion and they heil hitler and all that. So you hire this guy to work your front desk. He pulls the swastika out. The customers are greatly offended. But you cannot fire him.

      Someone can make a religion out of anything. I could start a religion of telling my boss that I want to do not at all tasteful things to his wife. So I tell him that. Apparently he's not allowed to fire me, even if it does make him rather uncomfortable.

      http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/backlash-employee.html:

      "Refusing to hire someone because customers or co-workers may be "uncomfortable" with that person's religion or national origin is just as illegal as refusing to hire that person because of religion or national origin in the first place. Similarly, an employer may not fire someone because of religion and/or national origin. This prohibition applies to other employment decisions as well, including promotion, transfers, work assignments and wages."

    42. Re:What the hell? by cjb658 · · Score: 1

      I'm about to move to Utah and I've heard horror stories about the natives shunning non-Mormons like me. "Isn't that illegal, when you're applying for a job?"

      "Oh, they have ways around it. They'll know right away whether or not you're LDS."

      Anyone have such an experience?

    43. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you're the religious asshole he got fired by.

    44. Re:What the hell? by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      Religious discrimination isn't prohibited, per se. Try applying for a job at your local Catholic church if you're an atheist and see what I mean.

      Talking about jobs.... Diskeeper seems to have a lot of job openings. Maybe their religious bias is evident during the job application process - with the economy the way it is, any company with that many open positions looks very suspicious.

    45. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite their claims to the contrary, Scientology is *NOT* a religion. They are nothing more than organized crime masquerading as religion.

    46. Re:What the hell? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's the catch 22 of being a "church". Yes, you pay no taxes, but you can't require people to follow your faith. If Scientology wasn't a church, this could probably even work if they could somehow convince a judge that that "training" somehow makes the employees work "better".

      But this is religion, right? If it wasn't, Scientology couldn't be a church and tax exempt. So it must not be forced on your employees.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    47. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let the best talent go to where we are appreciated and our quirks (religious beliefs, the shoes you wear, your not so politically correct conversation or personal convictions) matter the least.

      I could be working at a shoe store you insensitive clod!!

      P.S.: Great post. I'm just kidding of course, sorry you had to go through that.

    48. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I said nothing of the kind. In fact, any company that employs someone who throws things at their co-workers is a place I would be careful to avoid.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    49. Re:What the hell? by Kneo24 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why does every asshole think they're being smart by pointing out that for whatever reason, they believe it's not ok to say bad things about your former employer if they were complete cock-wipes?

      If a company is run by jerks, every person who has worked for them should tell people to stay away. It's a two way street, and it can bite you in the ass if you don't play nicely. Personally, I'd love to know if a potential entity that I might want services from were like this. It would make me think twice about giving them any sort of money.

      Some companies believe they always have the upper hand. Unbeknownst to them, they usually don't. When you let someone good go, everyone who works there will feel it. I doubt it's really easy to find someone who can effectively manage three different groups, and do so right in the middle of some major projects. My guess is that they probably hired at least two people to do his job.

      Most of us here probably don't mind working for the man, but when the man fucks us, we will take any opportunity to fuck him even harder.

    50. Re:What the hell? by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Believing in an invisible man in the sky is silly, but won't get in the way of doing a good job at almost anything.

      I, an atheist who holds all "spiritual" beliefs to be false, guarantee you that you have at least one belief not backed by the scientific method.

      Pascal's wager is a bad argument, but it's not a literally insane argument. Just a bad argument. About as bad as calling a person who presents Pascal's wager "literally insane" without any follow-up.

      Bigotry is a virus of the mind for those weaklings who cannot accepts that their petty beliefs or lack of beliefs or physiological attributes have no cosmic meaning, or at least, no cosmic meaning great enough to attempt to impose their will on the very minds of others, suppressing speech, thought, and action.

      If you're frustrated with a religious practice, argue against it, and if it's justified with the foundation of that religion, then argue against the foundation of that religion. Blanket statements like yours are unjustifiable.

      And, I will note, you do NOT have statistically meaningful scientific evidence that "Religion is a virus of the mind for those weaklings who cannot accept that we're a biochemical process who one day will cease to function as a living organism." You made that up and took it on faith to justify your other irrational beliefs. Come on. Be a better rationalist. Either find real issues with religion-qua-religion or accept that it doesn't make a fucking difference (religion-qua-religion that is...we can all cite a laundry list of specific examples where a religion or religious belief made a fucking difference).

    51. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either that or become a reputable dealer in non-existent stock.

    52. Re:What the hell? by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      I, an atheist who holds all "spiritual" beliefs to be false, guarantee you that you have at least one belief not backed by the scientific method.

      But the difference is, probably, he relies on evidence and is willing to be shown that he is wrong when he is.

      If you're frustrated with a religious practice, argue against it, and if it's justified with the foundation of that religion, then argue against the foundation of that religion. Blanket statements like yours are unjustifiable.

      When religion disagrees with the facts, you argue the facts and the evidence behind those facts, which are arrived at via scientific methodology. When religions make claims unsupported by any evidence, you, too, make note of that such like any other bogus theory. Thetans, ether, unicorns, they are are equally lacking in evidence.

      And, I will note, you do NOT have statistically meaningful scientific evidence that "Religion is a virus of the mind for those weaklings who cannot accept that we're a biochemical process who one day will cease to function as a living organism." You made that up and took it on faith to justify your other irrational beliefs. Come on. Be a better rationalist. Either find real issues with religion-qua-religion or accept that it doesn't make a fucking difference (religion-qua-religion that is...we can all cite a laundry list of specific examples where a religion or religious belief made a fucking difference).

      First off, religion DOES make a difference. Anything that promotes or relies upon belief based upon unobserved "truths" in the manner of "revelation" or "faith" is potentially dangerous. Much of the evil in the world done isn't because of malice, it's because people simply believe in things unsupported by evidence. Charity, goodwill, and helping others, however, can and does exist independently of religion. The "good" parts of religion need not vanish along with the "bad" parts (the false beliefs).

      As for his invective of "weaklings", yes, that is psychologically... naive, as well as seeming to be a bit of a value-judgment, but I think he is taking a page out of Dawkins' book in terms of viewing religion as a meme that reproduces well but not does give us access to the truth, and I agree with that. However, if you view religious people psychologically it's not proper to brush them all as being "weaklings".

    53. Re:What the hell? by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 0, Troll

      I wonder how many religions have started that way?

    54. Re:What the hell? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      No. It is not a religeon. The IRS did not give them the status they claim. They have less claim on being a religeon than a non-profit local basketball team.

    55. Re:What the hell? by Hartley · · Score: 1

      The Cult of Scientology doesn't go to court to win cases, it goes to court to spend money, more money and yet more money (plus, taxpayers money) until its opponents run out of money and give up. This always works because L Ron Hubbard said it would always work, even when it doesn't work. In short, don't expect logic from fanatics.

    56. Re:What the hell? by belmolis · · Score: 1

      According to the Wikipedia article on Church of Scientology, the IRS has granted them non-profit charitable status.

    57. Re:What the hell? by rujholla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nah they are more likely to hound you in a frustratingly kind way to join

    58. Re:What the hell? by syousef · · Score: 1

      This is what happens any time you start making life choices and moral decisions based on anything other than sound logical thinking. Everyone has a right to believe what they wish to, and that is as it should be. However the expectation that we allow morality based on fair stories, whether they're 2000 years old or less than a hundred years old, is just bullshit.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    59. Re:What the hell? by NecroPuppy · · Score: 1

      Except Scientology says that they are a religion.

      They can't have it both ways.

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    60. Re:What the hell? by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia is hardly a definitive source. That article may very well have been edited by (and monitored by) a CoS drone. I'm sure they could afford someone to sit and watch Wikipedia for anything painting CoS in a negative light.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    61. Re:What the hell? by Count+Fenring · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, rather, we call cutting off the entirety of the pleasure-generating organ in females the same thing we call trimming small amounts of skin in males.

      "Circumcision is bad" is a potentially legitimate position to hold, but if you think it's remotely comparable to what gets called "Female circumcision," you're way off base.

    62. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The most difficult part is going to be all the weird cultural references, hearing people talk about what they "did for FHE last night," and so on. It is illegal to discriminate; most people know it and try to avoid it, but face the fact that at some point, everybody in the company will know you're not a Mormon because you didn't know to laugh at a certain cultural reference and just gave everyone weird looks instead. Not your fault, and everybody cringes because they're afraid you'll feel discriminated against. Or they'll know by the tenth time that happens. :-)

      Just like everyone I work with in California (I have many wine industry clients) knows within a few meetings that I'm Mormon.

      Hope you enjoy Utah...it's a pretty state, even though I'm not a native and prefer the west coast.

    63. Re:What the hell? by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      First off, religion DOES make a difference. Anything that promotes or relies upon belief based upon unobserved "truths" in the manner of "revelation" or "faith" is potentially dangerous. Much of the evil in the world done isn't because of malice, it's because people simply believe in things unsupported by evidence. Charity, goodwill, and helping others, however, can and does exist independently of religion. The "good" parts of religion need not vanish along with the "bad" parts (the false beliefs).

      Aaaaand... no evil is done in the name of rationality, efficiency, and the utter denial of anything other than strict materialism?

      I am afraid that I must call shenanigans here.

      Your.Master has a good grasp on where the line between standing up for your position and needlessly combative lies. And the plain fact is, hostility toward all religion isn't going to be remotely effective as a tool for promoting rationality, any more than Jerry Falwell is effective at converting atheists.

    64. Re:What the hell? by belmolis · · Score: 1

      And I suppose that CoS agents also made up the newspaper articles to which the Wikipedia article links?

    65. Re:What the hell? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Co$ wouldn't have to lawyer up, they aren't involved. Forcing the practice of Scientology at work is against California law. But Scientology didn't do it, DisKeeper did.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    66. Re:What the hell? by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This doesn't follow at all. The first amendment guarantees individuals the right to practice their religion of choice. It does not grant the right to force religion on others nor does it allow for a corporation to force a religion on the workers.

      This'll end up going down in flames with either a settlement or precedence being set in favor of the employees.

      As far as employment requirements go, the first amendment doesn't apply at all, the relevant rules are from case law and human rights legislation. Religious beliefs do qualify a person as a protected class regardless of the particular religion and as such they cannot be used as a method for choosing candidates for non-religious jobs. Basically unless you're hiring for clergy or similar you're not going to be able to get away with it.

    67. Re:What the hell? by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      Nope...there are quite a few companies on record who keep the same doctrine, only for mainstream Christianity...Dominos Pizza comes to mind, and I read an article in Business 2.0 last year about a manufacturing outfit who mandate morning prayers, giving thanks before lunch, etc. It seems to be protected on some level...fucking creepy, but protected.

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    68. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please distinguish "Open Bretherans" from "Closed" or "Exclusive" Bretheran.

      The open ones are pretty much like any mainline Christian denomination, just with a more co-oprerative structure than a hierarchy.

      The exclusive/closed are the ones you're describing.

    69. Re:What the hell? by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      One thing I have always wondered is why the whole "not taxing churches" isn't against the constitution. How can you claim that church and state is seperated when churches get benefits that other organisations don't?

    70. Re:What the hell? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Religious discrimination isn't prohibited, per se. Try applying for a job at your local Catholic church if you're an atheist and see what I mean.

      Amusingly, a pagan friend of mine used to provide security for the bishop at the local arch-diocese. Go figure.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    71. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy was discriminated against by religious arseholes, throwing a notepad seems pretty restrained to me. By not standing up to people like that they win, period. You might not have the balls but fortunately some people do and good luck to them. Either way i'm not sure if you could have come across as more of a prick in your post.

      Well, I suppose you could have put a self-indulgent vanity signature on the end.

      Oh wait, you did that too (good for getting modded insightful by sycophants though, right?).

      -ck skr

      Shooting for 5+ here folks.

    72. Re:What the hell? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Oh, for God's sake (so to speak.) He didn't say "all of the evil in the world is done because of beliefs not supported by evidence" (i.e., religion) he said "much of the evil," etc. Can you really claim, with a straight face, that this is not true?

      Also, where are you getting this "your Master" crap?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    73. Re:What the hell? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      I could be wrong (not knowing much about Church business), but on religious organizations commonly considered to be non-profit organisations and not provide a source of personal wealth? There are good social reasons why tax-exceptions might be made for non-profits. Of course non-profit might not apply to all religious organisations and certainly does not apply to Scientology which is entirely oriented around making money.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    74. Re:What the hell? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      How can you claim that church and state is seperated when churches get benefits that other organisations don't?

      Many types of non-profit organizations besides churches are tax exempt.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    75. Re:What the hell? by Count+Fenring · · Score: 1

      I realize that... Honestly, I'm just pointing out that this doesn't actually make a strong case against religion, any more than the contrary point makes a strong case against rationalism.

      As for the "Your.Master crap," look at the poster he was responding to's username.

    76. Re:What the hell? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Informative


      If someone has never done any serious meditiative or spiritual practice before, then the mental states it is possible to induce in oneself will probably come as quite a shock and quite possibly be a very profound moment. But when people aren't aware that such mental states can be achieved through a variety of religious, spiritual or even purely psychological frameworks, then it's all too easy for some unscrupulous organisation to get that person to believe the experiences are tied to that organisation, that they possess some hidden truth.

      In short, as well as all the very negative techniques Scientology uses, it mixes in a few that ought to be useful and beneficial to the practitioner and tells them Scientology is the only route to these.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    77. Re:What the hell? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Meditiation does *not* need a religious basis, though many religions incorporate meditation into their practices. However, even without religious context, it is wrong to demand that employees should participate in mental training exercises. Employment must be based on whether the employee does their work, not on how they choose to think.

      All that said, even if something can't be explicitly required, working in an environment that is filled with members of the Church of Scientology and where the management consists of such, must cause problems to the free people who would be under pressure and intimidation from the rest.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    78. Re:What the hell? by deniable · · Score: 1

      I've seen the same thing with Amway cultists. If you aren't one of them, then you have problems. They're either trying to recruit you, treating you like vermin or only occasionally trying to sell you product.

    79. Re:What the hell? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Can you ever trust an ex-scientologist? It would seem that even those among them argue that it's totally insane to trust a (ex) scientologist.

      Scientology is socially fractal; the more you dig, the more you find more of the same horrors. It's simply amazing.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    80. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It was never about meditative states in your mind.

      The issue is the whole "throw your life away/give us everything" aspects, that are a big deal.

      Honestly, if all it preached was just making yourself feel good, we'd shrug em off and move on. However, this verbal and sometimes physical violence against other groups done by scientology is why we can only hope that scientology gets destroyed as soon as possible.

    81. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Tisha's a guy, Dude.

    82. Re:What the hell? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Say what?

      I think you are being quite a bit inaccurate here.

      This is like saying 'because xyz person did something it's the fault of the employer'.

      It's HR's duty to screen people before you hire them but you can't magically predict everything. It is however, that employer's fault for being religious nutcases, that people will take note and hopefully not choose that place to work/boycott them entirely.

      This guy has and should appropriately so feel free to vent everything about his experience with said company. Focusing on the fact that essentially on his last day he did something harsh? Really now, what do you expect people to do, smile and say thank you?

      Freedom of speech is out there for a reason.

    83. Re:What the hell? by atraintocry · · Score: 1, Troll

      Interesting. I have thought about this too. This is in no way a defense of Scientology, which I consider to be a glorified scam, but I have to wonder about the testimony you hear from the excommunicates or what-have-you...they were crazy enough to join a cult. But now they're rational and trustworthy? Maybe. Or maybe not.

    84. Re:What the hell? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Scientology is a cult that is why they have abit of an identity crisis, because they pretend to be something they are not.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    85. Re:What the hell? by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      My guess is they'll try to say that it's only a certain brand of management techniques. Check wise.org to see what I mean. I have no doubt that this is all about WISE and whether or not it's a legitimate form of business management or just a way for Scientology to get its foot in the door at people's offices.

      OTOH, the article on Wikipedia says that their incorporation papers say "Its purposes are to promote and foster the religious teachings of L. Ron Hubbard in society", so maybe I'm wrong and they won't try and separate out the religious part.

    86. Re:What the hell? by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      You mean, a priest?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    87. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 0, Troll

      throwing a notepad seems pretty restrained to me.

      So, you approve of tantrums in the workplace? How very revealing.

      By not standing up to people like that they win, period.

      I agree. When someone starts throwing things in the office, it's imperative to remove them as soon as possible.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    88. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 1, Troll

      Focusing on the fact that essentially on his last day he did something harsh?

      Try to grasp the difference between 1) saying something, 2) throwing something, and 3) throwing something at another person. If you can't recognize which of these is beyond the pale, then you're basically unemployable as far as I'm concerned.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    89. Re:What the hell? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Drag a cross in the door

      That is one thing that a Scientologist would not do: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/fishman/index2.html

    90. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure about you, but when I read the GP's comment, I assumed that "threw a notepad at him" was a figure of speech - that the GP threw the notepad on the VP's desk, not *actually* at him.

    91. Re:What the hell? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Quite contentious, eh? Well you don't make the decisions about employment, so what's your point?. How's the world looking from your high horse up there?

      Meanwhile, your definition of a social faux pas is not the same as everyone else's. Tossing a notepad at someone's desk could constitute throwing at another person just as much as chucking it at their face. Quite a bit of this info is subjective, wasn't provided, and is not even worth debating. Lumping the two together is what you just did. Good job with the semantics, sherlock. Way to imply that it must have been a physical altercation in which case his employer would probably have pressed charges, not just let him walk.

      I don't doubt that there could have certainly been better discussions made when the guy left but so what? Since when do you speak for everyone else in your offense of his lack of social grace?

    92. Re:What the hell? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You were probably canned for being a bitch.

      Knowing neither person, your willingness to make an assumption one way or the other says more about you than it does about anyone else.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    93. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bitch

      Sexist much? [Y/y]

    94. Re:What the hell? by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can see how by looking at a four paragraph summary about a persons time with a company, a one liner about throwing a notepad really gets you to the centre of the issue.

      You've just make a gigantic assumption, thus you must obviously be a very poor person to employ.

      Of course the above is just another example of the flawed logic you used, I couldn't possibly rate your personality on such limited information (especially given peoples ability to say far stupider things online than they do in person). I'm just amazed some people thought it was insightful.

    95. Re:What the hell? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful


      You don't have to be crazy to join a cult, just vulnerable. And that's all of us at some point.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    96. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't just make the point it proves the point. L. Ron Hubbard told a bunch of people he was starting a religion in order to make money. Looks like it works.

    97. Re:What the hell? by Mathness · · Score: 1

      Some former COS members left and founded SIN, they think of themselves as angles. Both of them tend to go off on a tangent though.

      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
    98. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't there a clause somewhere in the "mandatory training" law, that prohibits religious brainwashing disguised as training? The sensible requirement that mand. training has to have anything to do with the job execution could go a far way in this case, Diskeeper products have nothing to do with scientology. Also were the employees even informed of this mandatory _religuous_ training when they applied to the job, and so on.

      Yet again, Scientology makes a joke out of democracy and the principles it holds sacred like free-speech. But then again, so does the president of the USA, or any other country, when he claims his one nation under one god...

    99. Re:What the hell? by M1rth · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's one thing they already did: Hubbard began publishing his "books", if you can call them that, in the early 1950s (Dianetics was first published in 1950). It wasn't until a few years later, when he was under investigation for making false medical claims, that they (as one ex-$cieno put it) "Dragged a cross in the door, put collars on and renamed the leaders 'Ministers'" and rebranded their brand of snake oil a "religion" as a dodge against medical fraud and tax laws.

      Here's a great site covering the "evolution" of $cientology from a mere fraud to a bona fide nut cult.

      --
      If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
    100. Re:What the hell? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, while it is true that evil ought to be called out as such, reticence is a wise default policy. When you are angry enough to throw things at people is not the time when your judgement is the most trustworthy. Furthermore, being angry at somebody is like any other habit: the more you practice, the easier and more natural it becomes, and the less you can trust your objectivity.

      I don't think this is a simple issue. It may well be the case that evil would never be named if people did sometimes say or do unwise things under the influence of rage. But most things done under the influence of rage aren't good, or rational. And a person feeling rage can't tell the difference.

      Here's something to consider. A few years ago a social psychology experiment was reported in Science News, in which a subject was asked to attribute personality traits to a a researcher, after hearing that researcher describe the personality traits of another person. The subjects tended to attribute the traits of the person described to the person doing the describing. This result makes sense in a kind of "bird of a feather" sense. Oh, such and so company is totally incompetent and unprofessional. Then what were you doing working for them?. Those who throw shit tend to get dirty.

      The best strategy in most cases is that if you must damn a former employer, to damn them with faint praise. "Well, they didn't rush out a product to meet a deadline." "So the product was good?" "Well, it was better than it would have been if they shipped it on time." "So it was a bad?" "Well, such and such features was good... was a good idea." "So, was the product good or bad?" "Well, they did sell quite a few; I know some customers had overall positive impressions of the product. It certainly could have been worse." "But it could have been better?" "That goes without saying. If they had it to to do over again, I think they would have done some things differently."

      This kind of thing sends a stronger message than obvious contempt, one that is less likely to stick to you.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    101. Re:What the hell? by LKM · · Score: 1

      "meditation does have a religious basis"

      I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, but if you're trying to say that meditation is by definition a religious activity, you're wrong. I'm an atheist, and I use meditation techniques for various things. The fact that religions often use meditation does not make meditation in general a religious activity.

    102. Re:What the hell? by Sique · · Score: 1

      me.com? As in Me Inc.? So we are bouncing from CoS to SCO?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    103. Re:What the hell? by nevillethedevil · · Score: 1

      You should try living in Utah and not being Mormon.

      --
      Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
    104. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dumb are you jcr? You don't see the extenuating circumstances here? I wouldn't want to work for you, I never work for idiots. Mod points aren't that important but you seem to be a whore for them in every article. Are you a scientologist or something?

    105. Re:What the hell? by rthille · · Score: 1

      Huh, I read it as tossing a notepad at his boss and the notepad had something "bad" written on it.
      As in, writing down all the reasons you think you boss is a fuckwad on a notepad and then tossing it at his chest/belly area so that it's not painful, easy to catch, but still puts him off.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    106. Re:What the hell? by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      When did you stop beating your wife ?

      --
      Squirrel!
    107. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm a member of an open brethren church. The leadership is more of a committee - so it's a lot more consensus based - no single charismatic pastor leading everybody around.

      When one of my aunts said she was against organized religion, I told her that in that case my church should be OK - since it's not that organized :).

      In the normal worship service - members of the church can decide which song to sing (which does make it a bit more stressful and challenging for the musicians sometimes ;) ), they can pray, and some go off on strange tangents sometimes (oh well :) )...

      This is in contrast to many other churches - e.g. Anglican "High church" where what the minister and the congregation say for every service is written down in a book, or one of those "concert style" worship services which are mostly planned all the way.

      But of course that means it won't scale in size as well - you can't have 3000 members where all of them can try to pick the next song to sing - doesn't work as well.

    108. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      His point is that throwing things at people is extremely childish, and not remotely the proper way to handle any situation. If this guy handled being layed off by throwing things, what are the odds that he handled any other conflict within the company in a professional manner?

      I also noticed his saying that he wasn't a "team player" (sort of hints that he raised a stink) and that he went on to make it his "personal crusade" to get back at his former employer.

      Overall I agree with the OP but he also mentions several things that imply he's not the most professional employee, or very good at handling conflict. It seems reasonable that these could have been the real reason for his being the first to go at layoff time.

    109. Re:What the hell? by Courageous · · Score: 1

      You could have sued, and prevailed, for the prayer at the beginning of the management meetings. I'm not sure why you didn't...

      C//

    110. Re:What the hell? by bile · · Score: 1

      The 1st Amendment nor the US Constitution disallow what occurred. The 1st amendment says Congress shall pass "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Even if you accept incorporation theory and claim that the states must abide by it too that still doesn't cover this case. It has nothing to do with the State but a contract for employment between a business and an individual. Any federal legislation regarding this topic is likely unconstitutional leaving only state law. Unless state law says you can't make religious teachings part of one's employment requirements their is no case.

      Even so... I'd still rule against the employees. The employer can place whatever requirements for employment they like. If the employee doesn't like them they can find some other job. No harm was done to the employees or their property so their is no crime. No one was forced to do anything here. The employees voluntarily accepted positions offered by Diskeeper. The only force that appears to be or will be going on is the State on those who owner Diskeeper.

    111. Re:What the hell? by Courageous · · Score: 1

      It was out of control, but blaming the victim for lashing out is itself a bad behavior. If you deliberately jabbed my foot with jack boots, would it be wrong or right to punch you in the face? Answer: it would be justified, but probably not productive.

      The organization that he describes, with prayers sessions in its management meetings, IS BREAKING THE LAW. His rights were violated. They stepped on his feet with jack boots.

      The productive thing for him to have done would be to sue, and make them FUCKING STOP DOING THAT.

      C//

    112. Re:What the hell? by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Here's the difference.

      We say they're a cult. (Cult (noun) - a small, unpopular religion)

      They say they're a religion. (Religion (noun) - a large, popular cult.)

      The U.S. Government happens to agree with them right now. So, for legal purposes (i.e. in a courtroom), they are a religion.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    113. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may provide some insight to know that JCR works for Apple in considering what he considers acceptable relationships between employee, management, and the company.

      I do think burning bridges is generally a stupid move, and throwing a notepad has even more of a chance of being dumb. Everyone has a point at which they've been mistreated enough to become emotional where they know not to be, and being canned because you don't subscribe to the company's religion - even though you do terrific work for them - is about the worst thing an employer can to do an employee who doesn't feel completely trapped into staying at their work. If a thrown notepad is the worst I can expect from an employee no matter how terribly I treat them, then I'm okay with that so long as they don't have a long history of such outbursts and weren't physically threatening - somehow I doubt the notepad was intended as a weapon, when almost any office has much more harmful items to throw.

    114. Re:What the hell? by winwar · · Score: 1

      "You could have sued, and prevailed, for the prayer at the beginning of the management meetings. I'm not sure why you didn't..."

      You mean aside from the time, cost and uncertainty? And the same outcome?

      You can find a reason to fire anyone that will stand up in court....

    115. Re:What the hell? by vidarh · · Score: 1

      The employer can place whatever requirements for employment they like.

      That's not true in ANY developed country.

    116. Re:What the hell? by GospelHead821 · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, the Constitution does not specify that the church and the state must be separate. It specifies that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Giving tax breaks to religions that fit the official definition thereof neither establishes nor infringes. Therefore, it is constitutional. You might argue that the government's definition of religion is a de facto form of establishment, but I would disagree. Would you prefer that the Constitution mentioned religion and that the government had no definition thereof?

      --
      Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
      Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
    117. Re:What the hell? by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      ... what about chairs?

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    118. Re:What the hell? by jthill · · Score: 1

      I believe that, until very recently, much of the world's population was religious...

      Stalin starved twenty million of his own. Getting people to buy into any social hierarchy then taking over the hierarchy is the usual trick. Hierarchy is a dangerous tool.

      Blaming evil on religion is, quite simply, scapegoating. It's blaming other people for the worst parts of human nature, pretending not to share those parts.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    119. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those with a modicum of reading comprehension would have realised that throwing a notepad "while packing my personal effects" meant they were already out the door and presumably not employed by the company any more. There was no need to "remove them" as they were already going.

      I find your willingness to bend over and lick the corporate boot even more revealing, by the way. Or are you only against this person reacting in the way they did because they took a stand against a religion that your subscribe to?

    120. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, but it sounds to me like it would be in violation of this somehow...

    121. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, maybe it's JCR's fear of women in the workplace and general misogyny that led him to reply with such bile without all the facts.

      Or he could still just be a prick.

    122. Re:What the hell? by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      The First Amendment - indeed, the entire Bill of Rights - applies only to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

      Not to companies, or even (in most cases) to the states. Application to the states gets murky, though, what with case law and the 14th's "incorporation" notion.

      For giggles, let's take the approach that the BoR applies to companies. Here's a good piece to start with: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      So. That means you get to practice your religion in the cube next to me, but I get to carry my handgun in case you try to ritualistically sacrifice me?

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    123. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 1

      It may provide some insight to know that JCR works for Apple

      Not lately.

      I left Apple to work on a startup. Had a pretty good time there, but I felt like taking another shot at the new company lottery.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    124. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 1

      ... what about chairs?

      Good question. If someone deliberately threw anything my way that was heavy enough to cause injury, I'd call the cops and swear out an assault complaint.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    125. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 0, Troll

      I find your willingness to bend over and lick the corporate boot even more revealing, by the way.

      I find your fantasies about what I am or am not willing to do rather more revealing of yourself than of me. If you think it's boot licking to refrain from throwing a tantrum, then your parents must have done a very poor job of raising you.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    126. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      fear of women in the workplace and general misogyny

      Project much?

      It would be misogynistic to accept this "Tisha" person's gender as an excuse for her childishness.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    127. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 1

      If this guy handled being layed off by throwing things, what are the odds that he handled any other conflict within the company in a professional manner?

      Precisely. Having only "Tisha"s side of the story, in which she also bragged about nursing a grudge, I conclude that the employer was right and she was wrong. Blaming her firing on their religious differences sounds like an ego defense to me.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    128. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 1

      You don't see the extenuating circumstances here?

      If someone pisses you off, you're within your rights to complain or perhaps to litigate, but not to throw things at them. If you don't understand that, then you're not equipped to function in society.

      I wouldn't want to work for you,

      Well, that's certainly something I can be thankful for today.

      Are you a scientologist or something?

      As it happens, the clams put me in their black list. Scientologits aren't even allowed to load web pages where my name appears.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    129. Re:What the hell? by __howard_42__ · · Score: 1

      You were probably canned for being a bitch.

      Knowing neither person, your willingness to make an assumption one way or the other says more about you than it does about anyone else.

      when the original post said ...

      I threw a notepad at the vice president and told him in a long tirade to get fuxed.

      it did provide some insight on the person who was laid off. Given the situation, I can understand her actions, but I can also see where someone might reach conclusions about her judgment.

    130. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all of us. Some people were born skeptical.

      I know. I happen to be one of them.

    131. Re:What the hell? by HappySmileMan · · Score: 1

      So. That means you get to practice your religion in the cube next to me, but I get to carry my handgun in case you try to ritualistically sacrifice me?

      Erm... Yes, exactly, as long as he doesn't force his religion on you, and you only use your gun if needed in self defense.

      Although they can say you can't bring a gun in of course.

      What I really want to know is what the fuck the point you're trying to make it, discriminating against people of a different religion when hiring is a crime, regardless of whether your a Christian, a Muslim or a Scientologist, if a company forced it's employees to go confess to a priest or go to Church it would get sued also.

    132. Re:What the hell? by void* · · Score: 4, Informative

      The employer can place whatever requirements for employment they like.

      Sorry, but if the employment requirements break the law, the fact that those requirements are laid out in a contract doesn't matter at all.

      In California, which is where Diskeeper is based, state law says the following:

      (a) For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color,
      national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability,
      medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation of
      any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to
      select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to
      bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training
      program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person
      in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

      Forcing you to go to CoS classes as part of your terms of employment certainly seems at first glance to run afoul of California's FEHA at the very least, if not Federal law as well.

      --


      Code or be coded.
    133. Re:What the hell? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That is not the same as being a religeon and could be claimed by a basketball team for disadvantaged kids. They got that status as a result of the settlement in a very long court case with the IRS which had been decided that it was not worth pursuing. Personally I think the German authorities had the right idea when they called them a pyramid finance scam instead.

    134. Re:What the hell? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Only to the male babies though, it's disruptive and repressive to their sexuality to do it to female babies

      Males too.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    135. Re:What the hell? by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it wasn't a crime to discriminate based on religion - I said the First Amendment didn't apply.

      Sorry you made assumptions.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    136. Re:What the hell? by HappySmileMan · · Score: 1

      Mod points aren't that important but you seem to be a whore for them in every article. Are you a scientologist or something?

      What an appropriate article to post those 2 sentences in.

    137. Re:What the hell? by HappySmileMan · · Score: 1

      It's a software company though, a kosher restaurant has a lot more links to Judaism than disk defragmenting has to do with Scientology.

    138. Re:What the hell? by HappySmileMan · · Score: 1

      Religious discrimination isn't prohibited, per se. Try applying for a job at your local Catholic church if you're an atheist and see what I mean.

      A church is a non-profit organisation, Diskeeper can't make this claim.

    139. Re:What the hell? by HappySmileMan · · Score: 1

      Co$ wouldn't have to lawyer up, they aren't involved. Forcing the practice of Scientology at work is against California law. But Scientology didn't do it, DisKeeper did.

      Exactly, the person responsible will take the fall, resign from his position in WISE and give a load of money to the Church of Scientology, and then he'll find a different way to get new members and be right back in the Church's arms probably.

    140. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A tantrum is an outburst of rage usually associated with a small child who cannot get their own way. When you have been persecuted for your religious beliefs, or lack of them, and wish to settle the score by one means or another it is not a tantrum. Ever. The response can be out of proportion, it can be unproductive, it can even be illegal - but it is not a tantrum and to characterise is as such greatly demeans the injustice that was perpetrated.

      To draw a very easy parallel to an overused hot-topic (but valid since you lack the cerbral capacity to understand what happened as it stands): is it still a tantrum if the EXACT same thing happened but the notebook thrower was Jewish and was forced out by a company run by Nazis?

      By the way my parents raised me just fine thank you, I haven't come to blows with another human being in twenty years (I was 9), neither have I ever thrown anything at anybody. However I was raised to never back down to bullys of any stripe and find the religious type to be particularly disgusting. Almost as disgusting are spineless automatons who follow the corporate line uber alles but perhaps the most disgusting of all are hypocrites - another poster said you work for apple, so how can you rationalise working under somebody who has a documented history of lashing out at employees when you find it so unacceptable?

      In short you should just come down from your high horse and apologise for calling the OP a bitch, rather than continuing this sad excursion into your lack of guts and character.

    141. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A notepad is not a fucking bola or anything close, it is obvious that was purely a representative action and could not have caused any actual harm. You must get a kick out of this kind of shit though, whore. I guess you hate everyone who protests anything eh? If nothing else both you and the Scientologists have an awful lot in common with that.

    142. Re:What the hell? by Courageous · · Score: 1

      He (you?) should have spoken with the attorney, not assumed. The cost isn't high in cases like this, if the evidence seems strong. Attorney's know a strong case when they see one, and descend like sharks. Management issuing written requiring attendance to religious training? Done deal.

      C//

    143. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 0, Troll

      I see by the verbosity of your response that I touched a nerve. Try to work it out in therapy.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    144. Re:What the hell? by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      idealists search of a balance of the good and the evil in the human mind with the goal of liberating man from baseless morality and bringing out the true essence of man, which is one of capability and power.

      Hmm. I have no idea who or what you are talking about here. The only one person I can think of that fits this decription is Russel, yet I have the impression you really meant something else...

    145. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's it? That's all you've got? No attempt to address the points whatsoever? Truth stings, don't it?

      That you think a hatred of bigots is in some way a trait needing therapy yet again digs you further into your little hole.

      Congratulations on showing your true colours today, those of an apologist for religious persecution.

    146. Re:What the hell? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      When it came time for lay-off's, guess who was let go, the director and myself. Eventually the director was re-hired as a consultant. I decided to burn that bridge and when packing my personal effects I threw a notepad at the vice president and told him in a long tirade to get fuxed. Also, I refused to provide any future assistance when they called me later to figure out how to proceed on some of the projects I was working on.

      Since this was in a "right to work" state I had little recourse and would not go back, even if they had doubled my salary and given me a public apology. I went on to a different company and made it my personal crusade to steer every customer away from my earlier employer. Sometimes those types of layoffs come back in spades and bite you in the behind.

      Religious fanaticism, discriminatory hiring practices and the glass ceiling are still a major problem in many American companies to this day.

      If the director was re-hired, then clearly his religious practices or the lack of them were not a serious problem. You, on the other hand, apparently refused any possibility of re-hiring, threw a temper tantrum coupled with a physical assault, and are now wasting your time - sorry, your current employers time - in an attempt of getting vengeance on someone who dared to fire the great you. Which raises a question of how you behaved in your former workplace; did you pursue any other personal crusades on your employers time there ?

      It makes me wonder if there really is a glass ceiling, or if it's just a myth people like you want to blame for their lack of success.

      It is a fool who does not hire the most capable and talented individuals because of some personal bias caused by their own ignorance.

      Unless, of course, those talents come bundled with violent immaturity. Who in their right mind wants to deal with that ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    147. Re:What the hell? by Brain+Damaged+Bogan · · Score: 1

      they aren't forcing a religion on their workers. they are forcing a cult on them.

      --
      -- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
    148. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everybody cringes because they're afraid

      Everybody cringes, they are afraid. Guess, what happens next? The unconfortable feeling reflects from the outsider back towards the community and suddenly, the community feels there something unconfortable about the behaviour of the outsider. The outsider reflects the feeling, changing it to a feeling of being discriminated against. The pattern intensifies and repeats, unless the feelings are openly and bravely met and expressed in a proper format, say in a gathering of the community and the outsider where the outsider is welcomed to the community and explained the local customs and manners of behaviour. Then again, I'm not a phycologist.

    149. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ("Cult, murder, fraud, stealing, conspiracy")

      Yup, sounds like a religion to me.

    150. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Not all of us. Some people were born skeptical.

      I know. I happen to be one of them.

      I don't believe it.

    151. Re:What the hell? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      I see by the verbosity of your response that I touched a nerve. Try to work it out in therapy.

      I see by the brevity of yours you prefer not to engage the poster's actual arguments and prefer to rely on taunts. This in response to some people disagreeing with you in an online forum! Your response, scaled down, is worse than the OP throwing her notebook at her manager. She had just had her employment and source of income terminated by someone who disliked her religious position and responded to that person with something orders of magnitude less damaging (unless she's a ninja and can kill people with notebooks). You're getting well-explained criticism and responding with abuse and character attacks.

      You weren't there, know neither person and cannot support comments like "were probably canned for being a bitch." You should consider whether you may have spoken a bit too glibly and move on.

      Regards,
      H.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    152. Re:What the hell? by Talgrath · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you haven't heard of anti-discrimination laws then; they say that you cannot discriminate against an employee due to race, religion or sex. The reason for this should be obvious, if companies can say that they won't hire people of a certain race, religion or sex then that means that getting a job isn't about your skill but about being a part of the right sort of groups; this means that becoming a part of a religion is not so much a personal, spiritual choice but a required choice for a particular career. If atheists controlled your industry and you had to become an atheist to join the industry, you would raise hell, wouldn't you? Or if you're an atheist, if you were forced to become a part of a religion you'd let the lawsuits fly too.

    153. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still waiting for the great jcr to bestow upon us his answer to the question:

      "is it still a tantrum if the EXACT same thing happened but the notebook thrower was Jewish and was forced out by a company run by Nazis?"

    154. Re:What the hell? by Talgrath · · Score: 1

      http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

      Take a look at that, religious discrimination of any kind, under that law is illegal. If you need to pray to Mecca during certain parts of the work day you are allowed to (of course, the employer is also allowed to not pay you during these times), if you need to wear a small cross around your neck or do a dance every day at 2:02 pm those are all fine so long as it doesn't cost your employer anything extra. Of course, this doesn't give you free reign to do whatever religious things you'd like at the workplace; if you have to sacrifice a goat each day at 3:00 pm, you can't do that at work because it would make a huge mess (and cost the employer significant money in clean-up and time lost). If your religion tells you you have to smack women around whenever you see them then you can't do that either, because it conflict with laws against physical violence and work place harassment. If someone at your work wasn't allowed to pray at work because it would be disruptive to the workplace or foist their religious views on others then the company had every right to block them; but if all they wanted to do was quiet prayer that didn't disrupt the workplace, then that is fine.

      As for the lawsuit, this one portion of the law basically makes sure that this guy wins : "Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment."

    155. Re:What the hell? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Let's say I have a job where I need someone to work Thursday-Monday. There are sects of Jews that won't work on the Sabbath. Is it religious discrimination for not hiring them because they can't meet the qualifications of the job as a result of their beliefs?

    156. Re:What the hell? by Talgrath · · Score: 1

      The 1st amendment has jack shit to do with this; the 1st amendment handles the government discriminating based on religion.

      http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

      Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may however have something to do with this...or maybe not. It's not like that Title VII has anything to do with religion...

    157. Re:What the hell? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      I am in fairly regular contact with many paths of faith and I have no problem with any of them, including Brethren of all types. The only 'church' that I do not have contact with is Scientology.
      They haven't approached me or the organizations I have/had worked for. I've never approached them either.
      I wondered about that for years until I found out more about their higher church organization and the secret that costs many thousands of dollars.
      It is the only 'church' or religion I know of that is godless.
      There is nothing beyond Xenu.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    158. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After her Aikido classes.

    159. Re:What the hell? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, the Constitution does not specify that the church and the state must be separate. It specifies that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Giving tax breaks to religions that fit the official definition thereof neither establishes nor infringes. Therefore, it is constitutional. You might argue that the government's definition of religion is a de facto form of establishment, but I would disagree. Would you prefer that the Constitution mentioned religion and that the government had no definition thereof?

      I would prefer that the Constitution specified that "religion should in no way or on no basis be respected, specified or supported. It is on a whole mainly a source of strife, warmaking and hatred, and has no place in the governance of rational men."

      But that's just me using common sense and reading history.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    160. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 1

      I guess you hate everyone who protests anything eh?

      Not at all. Protest is often appropriate and necessary. I just understand the difference between civilized and uncivlized behavior, which you apparently don't.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    161. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on showing your true colours today, those of an apologist for religious persecution.

      I make no apologies for religious persecution. Based on her own account, it's not at all apparent that Tisha has suffered anything of the kind.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    162. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 1

      I see by the brevity of yours you prefer not to engage the poster's actual arguments and prefer to rely on taunts.

      Once he trotted out the "what if they were nazis" gambit, there clearly wasn't any point to doing so. Google for "Godwin's law".

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    163. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Well, as it happens, I'm a Jew myself, and being Jewish isn't a license to throw things at people. If your hypothetical nazi threw something at me first, it would be a different situation, of course.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    164. Re:What the hell? by jcr · · Score: 1

      I assumed that "threw a notepad at him" was a figure of speech

      I assumed that she meant what she wrote.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    165. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you still refuse to answer a legitimate question then? Simply saying "Godwins Law" does not end a dialogue in your favour, especially when the "what if they were nazis" gambit is 100 percent applicable in this case. Such a display of intellectual dishonesty is truly pathetic, but whatever gets you to sleep at night I suppose - i'm sure you could never even entertain the thought that calling someone out as a bitch without any justification puts you in the wrong. Makes you look like a real piece of shit actually.

      Of course we both know the real reason you won't answer the question directly is because you can't - not without either proving yourself a bigot or an idiot for changing your tune. Still, if you don't like the nazi angle, how about:

      "is it still a tantrum if the EXACT same thing happened but the notebook thrower was black and was forced out by a company run by white supremacists?"

      or maybe:

      "is it still a tantrum if the EXACT same thing happened but the notebook thrower was female and was forced out by a company run by sexist males?"

      Honestly, I would love to hear your answer, yes or no. Really simple question here. I'm sure a gargantuan intellect and judge of human character and ethics like yourself can answer that in a heartbeat. You can even change the variables if you like.

      By the way, the last time that a group in the west starting persecuting people due to their religion on a large scale they didn't get notepads thrown at them, they got bullets - and the world generally agrees that that was a GOOD and JUST thing. Perhaps if there were fewer apologists like you that whole debacle would have been nipped in the bud.

      Oops, guess I wrote a lot again - must mean i'm wrong and have no legitimate argument or points! Feel free to dismiss it all with one line.

    166. Re:What the hell? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      In that case, no. You are, however, required to offer "reasonable accommodation".

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    167. Re:What the hell? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I am god.

      I claim it to be true, there for I am.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    168. Re:What the hell? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      It's a shame this AC is AC and consequently appears lower than myself karma-wise. The points are well put. Seizing on a reference to Nazism and saying "Godwin's Law" as if it ends an argument, as a means of avoiding confronting the points made, does not mean you clicked some "I Win" button on the Internet. Who really cares that you choose not to discuss something any further because a reference to Nazism was made? It's no more legitimate than you simply saying "you're wrong 'cause I say so and I'm not going to talk anymore."

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    169. Re:What the hell? by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      IANAL but I seem to remember the constitution saying a lot of Congress shall make no laws... rather than telling private citizens what they can and can't do. YMMV with state laws but I'm not aware of any federal law prohibiting religious discrimination to anyone but government agencies.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    170. Re:What the hell? by instarx · · Score: 1

      Religious fanaticism, discriminatory hiring practices and the glass ceiling are still a major problem in many American companies to this day. I guess that you could fight these practices in court but in the long run, do you really want to work for people like this?

      Let the best talent go to where we are appreciated and our quirks (religious beliefs, the shoes you wear, your not so politically correct conversation or personal convictions) matter the least.

      Unfortunatly that doesn't address the problem. Just not working for a company that disciminates may not be an option. The number of available jobs are not unlimited nor are the relative quality of jobs the same. If a person could'nt get a job at a white-owned company would you say the solution is for them is to just go get a job at a black-owned company?

      Comapanies that violate anti-discrimination laws should be sued, and prosecuted.

    171. Re:What the hell? by instarx · · Score: 1

      Basically unless you're hiring for clergy or similar you're not going to be able to get away with it.

      Companies get away with a lot of crap in hiring and firing all the time. Being wrong and "getting away with it" are two etirely different things.

    172. Re:What the hell? by neomunk · · Score: 1

      I just understand the difference between civilized and uncivlized behavior

      Really now? Reading through this entire thread to this point (I browse at -1 on slashdot) I find it difficult to believe that you honestly do. Or, perhaps you DO, but feel no compulsion to follow the civilized track.

      You might even be right about the OP being a bitch, I don't know (and neither do you, really, from the flimsy 'evidence' you're grasping so tightly). What I DO know is that you have sunk down into a very poor position to be arguing morality and ethics from, as you gave up attempts at reasoned debate in favor of smug character attacks. You've convinced no-one, and have pushed many away from your point of view by brushing aside all arguments with nothing more than pure ego masquerading as flippant dismissal. Your calling upon Godwin's "law" (it's not really a law, and if it WERE a law (due to the possibility of an 'infinite' thread), you've misapplied it) higher up in the thread really hit the point home, as you were plainly either unwilling or unable to answer a completely relevant question.

      Looks to me like your pissy attitude has dug you into a hole, that from your perspective seems to look like a platform for some reason. Go back and re-read the thread (trying to be objective, try really hard) and tell me if you really think you come across as someone who should be lecturing on civilized behavior.

    173. Re:What the hell? by neomunk · · Score: 1

      By the GPs definition, we would call that a cult.

      And no, I'm not interested in your newsletter at this time.

    174. Re:What the hell? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "is it still a tantrum if the EXACT same thing happened but the notebook thrower was Jewish and was forced out by a company run by Nazis?"

      The short answer is yes. The long answer is you are intentionally confusing the issue with emotionally charged mumbo jumbo in an attempt to defend an undefendable point.

      When someone resorts to physical interaction when none has been threatened or initiated against them it is a sign they have failed to act as a rational entity. In my personal opinion, they have failed to act as a human in that interaction.

      The real irony of your comparison of Jews and Nazis is that the Nazis did the same thing you are trying to support. They violated otherwise peaceful people because of their religious beliefs. Hypocrisy in spades.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    175. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So by your logic if I withhold water from a man dying of thirst (when I have plenty) I have not threatened him physically and therefor he will not be a rational entity if he turns to violence? You are seriously telling me you would think less of the thirsty man if he threw a notepad at me? It could even be argued that actively taking away someones ability to feed and clothe themself (as in firing them) is worse than the passive act of withholding. The latter example may be a leap too far but the former is certainly not - taking away someones income demonstrably affects them physically and in a far more serious way than having a notepad thrown at them.

      That you think someone is throwing a tantrum (failed to act as a human, no less) when they have been persecuted for their beliefs is very sad, but does I suppose go some way to explain why the world is in such a bad way.

      Also, your last paragraph is pure gibberish. The violation in the OP's story was her persecution at the hands of her employer, not her "violating" them by throwing a notepad. That you can even begin to think that throwing a notepad equates to religious persecution, and then defend that standpoint publicly, is also incredibly sad.

      From the start I have never said that what the OP did was the RIGHT thing to do, or the best. What I do argue is that it was understandable and (easily) justifiable in a rational world. I took great exception to JCR saying that she was a bitch and being fired was her fault, an undefendable standpoint from the given information and one he should apologise for (though since he has disappeared with his tail between his legs I doubt that will be forthcoming).

      I am literally scared to live in a world where I could be on trial for throwing a notepad at someone who has wronged me like that. Imagining a jury filled with brownshirts like you and JCR for ANY trial is a frightening one.

    176. Re:What the hell? by pfleming · · Score: 1

      Without religion there would be no justification for raping, pillaging and attempting to exterminate indigenous peoples throughout the world. Without religion people wouldn't be jailed over the naming of a teddy bear, people would not strap explosives to themselves to kill non-believers, nor would there be honor killings, burkas, sex and sexual orientation based repression and oppression. AIDS would have been researched earlier and fewer AIDS-related deaths would have occurred world-wide.
      You would rather have that than someone who practices "calming breathes"?

    177. Re:What the hell? by pfleming · · Score: 1

      Religious discrimination isn't prohibited, per se. Try applying for a job at your local Catholic church if you're an atheist and see what I mean.

      Churches can discriminate in who they offer their services to (who to marry for instance) but *only* if they do not offer public services. As soon as they provide services publicly, they lose the religious protections.

    178. Re:What the hell? by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Look - there's no reason anybody shouldn't be more than a little angry when they lose their job. It's 100% natural.

      But many in this thread thread apparently needs a lesson in both maturity and law.

      1.) "Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states [...] which prohibit agreements between trade unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or "fees" a condition of employment, either before or after hiring." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
      2.) "At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargain (i.e. a union). Under this legal doctrine:
      " any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

      There are many states that are not right to work (ie. "union states") have at-will employment (California and Michigan are examples).

      Right to work only means you can't be fired for refusing to join (or pay for) a union, not that you can only be terminated for a good reason.

      But, back to the topic...The anger felt by Tisha is completely understandible. Nobody likes to be fired, and frankly, we humans want to have a reason for pretty much everything.

      It's difficult to show if religion was the reason this person lost their job - depending on the juristiction, employment can be terminated "for good reason, for bad reason, or no reason at all." That's an awful lot of wiggle room.

      But there's a right and a wrong way to go about addressing one's grievences. Two wrongs don't make a right. Espescially when one of them is codified in law as illegal.

      Throwing an object (at any velocity) is assault if the target feels the intent is hostile. It's assault when you throw a note angrily at your ex-employer, and it's assault when you throw a soft drink at somebody in rush hour traffic. It's even considered assault if you touch somebody in a way they feel is hostile (regardless of actual intent).

      This is why employers often call in the police to escort employees from the premesis - the police are the only ones who have the legal authority to force you to leave, should it come to that.

      In other words, here's my tally:
      1.) Even if the state in question does have unlawful reasons for termination, it's difficult to prove that the layoff was religiously motivated in this dreary economy. Yeah, it sucks, but that's life. Employers also have rights that should be protected, including that of being innocent until proven guilty.
      2.) Tisha_AH admits to throwing something at the former employer, which is classified as an assault in most juristictions in the US. It doesn't really matter what Tisha_AH's intent was - only how the VP perceived it.

      I do feel sorry for anybody who loses their job, truly. I've seen too many friends lose thier jobs in the past 18 months, and have lost my own job in the past year. However, there is never an excuse for such childish violence in the workplace. We have peaceful, legal means of redressing greviences, and choosing peaceful, legal means over violence is what separates a professional adult from a child.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    179. Re:What the hell? by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd argue the outcome wouldn't be the same.

      I live in a highly religious state. But even here, there are laws against religion in the workplace. You can't have a religious book on display in your office/cube, and you can't evangelize a faith at work. (Actually, the same goes for political speech, but I digress...)

      I don't recall the specifics, but it was along the line of freedom of speech or religion doesn't apply when the audience isn't free to ignore it or leave. ie. you don't have a right to force your views upon what amounts to a captive audience.

      Unlike somebody preaching in a street, on a streetcorner, or knocking at your doorstep, you can't just leave work without consequences.

      You can leave a church. On a street, you can walk past. On a doorstep, you can slam the door in their faces and have the police arrest them if they don't leave immediately.

      But you can't get up and leave your job without risking your livelihood and career.

      In this case, it's probable that you'd still get fired for suing them for practicing religion at work - so either way, you're out of a job. Employers generally don't even need a reason to fire an employee.

      But if you get an attorney involved, the offending employer will have to pay for breaking the law, most likely with a stiff amount of punitive damages to "make an example" to discourage other employers from doing the same thing.

      True, after getting an attorney involved, you'd still be out of a job. There's not much that can be done about that. That part of the outcome is indeed the same.

      But there are differences: you'll have also made life a bit better for people with the same problem. As a bonus, you'll have paid for your attorney's next vacation, and possibly retirement (providing one fewer attorney to worry about if only for a while)

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    180. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots made this out as some big problem and position to give their pitiful lives meaning. No amount of exaggerating and posturing makes them any better than the idiots they already were. Don't encourage them by continuing failed crusades, assuming you are a different person and not the same person using another account.

    181. Re:What the hell? by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      I am sorry, but I couldn't read your post because the stupidity of self help books was distracting me. Besides, those things are bad shit, but ideology would easily replace religion's spot in causing that non-sense if religion was removed. Self-help idiots have not caused any of those things... ...yet. But I can assure you, self-help BS is even more retarded than religion.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    182. Re:What the hell? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Anonymous troll food, but oh well.

      Witholding water from a person dying of thirst, a sin of omission if you will, is an entirely different set. However, it implies threats of physical violence to restrain the dying person and also contains the presumption that the one witholding is already acting in a violent manner, though not overtly. Not exactly a stellar example on your part.

      You seem to have confused firing with persecution, fact with emotional content, and reality with one-sided editorial commentary. As it is, I have to assume that no "persecution" occurred, as the facts are not verifiable nor has a disinterested third party offered a judgement on the case. Regardless, it is not acceptable for someone to react with physical interactions of any kind to a physically non-threatening situation. An appropriate punitive response to a situation where you feel you have been wronged in this way would be to get a lawyer; not fling objects at people.

      As understandable and justifiable as you think it is, I refuse to think that way. If instead of a notepad, a mouse was thrown, would it be different? What if it was a paperweight? A rock? Is that too much? Ok, what if the employer had personally insulted her before firing her or used a derogatory racial epithet? Would that justify something larger than a notepad? Where is the line of impropriety crossed? For me it is simple. Treat others with honor, respect, and dignity, and thusly, keep your hands and projectiles to yourself. Escalating to physical contact opens the door to reprisals and further escalation and betrays a mental attitude that is either immature, malicious, or both.

      How you can interpret my personal abhorence for physical violence and respect for the sanctity of others' physical bodies as Naziism is fascinating. Then again, you have shown yourself to be overtly emotional in your thoughts, capable of assumptions of fact where they are not verifiable, and lacking logic in your analogies and comparisons. Whether you are misguided or just inept has lost its relevance to me. Fortunately for me, we are not having this conversation in person. People who can rationalize unjustified physical contact and who also happen to posess an excitable, emotional disposition combined with poor logic skills frighten and disgust me.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    183. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believing in an invisible man in the sky [...] won't get in the way of doing a good job at almost anything.

      Except, y'know, astronomy or biology or geology. Or medicine or pharmacy or teaching (all of which call for putting your clients' beliefs into practice, not your own).

    184. Re:What the hell? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      People who can rationalize unjustified physical contact and who also happen to posess an excitable, emotional disposition combined with poor logic skills frighten and disgust me.

      The tone of the post you are replying to is very far from overly emotional and excitable. The logic is actually good and well supported. The composition is well-thought out.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    185. Re:What the hell? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      . As a bonus, you'll have paid for your attorney's next vacation, and possibly retirement (providing one fewer attorney to worry about if only for a while)

      LOL! Love the way you keep an eye on the bigger picture! :D

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    186. Re:What the hell? by qubezz · · Score: 1

      >>Nice email address btw. It was when gMail first came out. I tried everything I could think of and after everything was taken (including "allnamestaken") I typed this as a joke. It just forwards to my .me email now, though.

      If you had to try everything, it wasn't when gmail first came out. I got my name first try: firstlast.gmail.com.

    187. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to break it to you, but getting a job *is* all about being in the right groups. If you don't schmooze with the right people, you don't make the contacts to get the good jobs. If you're not in the right social groups, you'll keep being stuck working for $20/hr, switching jobs every 6 months. Once you get into the right groups, you'll be making $200/hr, keeping the jobs for as long as you want.

    188. Re:What the hell? by Nesman64 · · Score: 1
      Actually, Hubbard was quoted as saying:

      You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.

      It's nice that he found a way to combine the two.

      --
      coffee | nose > keyboard
    189. Re:What the hell? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      I don't like having my name directly connected to the places I put my email address or even my IM name. I try to make it so that when you google my name you don't find that I spent the better part of the '00s wasting time on /., digg, and various piracy related forums.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    190. Re:What the hell? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      I use my .me address. And to the guy below, .me is the replacement for .mac.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  3. Religion: the ultimate free pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Want to get away with torture? How about murder? Just claim you're doing it for the Invisible Sky Guy, or to get rid of those pesky body thetans.

    Want justice? Work for peace. Want peace? Kill your God.

    1. Re:Religion: the ultimate free pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some people don't feel they need to behave unless there is an omniscient parental figure monitoring their every thought. Essentially a large group of people never progressed beyond childhood. They are just children with a job and a mortgage.

    2. Re:Religion: the ultimate free pass by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      Some people don't feel they need to behave unless there is an omniscient parental figure monitoring their every thought. Essentially a large group of people never progressed beyond childhood. They are just children with a job and a mortgage.

      Firstly, even the three main monotheistic faiths are a lot more complicated than that. Don't confuse loud fundamentalists nut-jobs with actual religious people. Secondly, there is this whole area of the world that does not have any kind of "omniscient parental figure". You are aware of the Asian continent, are you not?

    3. Re:Religion: the ultimate free pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just thought I would point out your capitalization of "your God" is incorrect. It should be "your god", as in any god. The capitalized "God" is the name of the Christian/Jewish/Muslim/whatever god. It's a name and therefore capitalized. A god is just lowercase. If you meant kill the Christian god then you should have written "Kill God."

    4. Re:Religion: the ultimate free pass by ZekoMal · · Score: 1
      They never said 'everybody who is religious = stoopid'.

      Although tbh with you, monotheistic religions breed hatred, because the only way that religion survives...is by recruiting the unwashed masses; the idiots that can't work a toaster, or thank Jesus for saving their dog from a horrible fire that also killed every human in the building. This large group of people speak the loudest: they say "this is what our religion accepts as good!". You can deny it up and down, but right now the huge religious squabble in the US over gay marriage is clearly not a thought-powered battle.

    5. Re:Religion: the ultimate free pass by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      Firstly, even the three main monotheistic faiths are a lot more complicated than that. Don't confuse loud fundamentalists nut-jobs with actual religious people.

      Fair enough, but please don't confuse actual religious people with theologians and church authorities. The people who fill out "Christian" on a survey tend to have a far different set of beliefs when it comes to God, the after-life, angels, prayers, and miracles, while the average religious scholar struggles with dilemmas that are far out of the mainstream's reach.

      Go watch "Seventh Heaven" (is that even still on?) and then sit down with something written by Thomas Aquinas to see what I mean.

  4. It doesn't work like that. by khasim · · Score: 5, Informative

    They can fire you, at will, for any LEGAL reason.

    Discrimination based upon religious preference is NOT a legal reason.

    1. Re:It doesn't work like that. by something_wicked_thi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Correct. There are several exceptions to the at-will doctrine in California. You can't be fired if you've been promised, even verbally, that you will not be. Further, you can't be fired for refusing to break a law, based on religion or various other types of discrimination, and a small handful of other reasons.

    2. Re:It doesn't work like that. by TurtleRam · · Score: 1

      Seconded: The 1st Amendment may allow for free speech, but not discrimination based on religion. Then again, we are talking about Scientology, which is more of a business than anything. But let's put this in perspective. Let's say that the CEO is actually part of a cult that is openly preying on the weak... Hey, wait just a second!

      --
      believethesign.com
    3. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Kent+Recal · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can't be fired if you've been promised, even verbally, that you will not be.

      Hmmm. What if that promise was made under torture?
      I'm just wondering if tickling my boss really hard could help my job security.

    4. Re:It doesn't work like that. by queequeg1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Perhaps this is a semantic quibble, but the rule is really the flip side. They can fire for *any* reason so long as there is not a law (or common law court decision) that specifically makes the reason unlawful. Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, marital status, and pregnancy are just a few of the proscribed reasons. Various state statutes add a lot more. At one point, Oregon had a statute that prohibited employers from taking adverse action against employees based on their non-workplace use of tobacco products (I don't know if this is still on the books). The point being, unless it is a specifically prohibited reason, the employer can use it as a basis for termination. In practice, things get much more complex and employers often use non-prohibited reasons as a pretext for firing someone for a prohibited reason.

      Employers with a religious purpose (churches immediately come to mind) have limited leeway with respect to employing people who share the same religious belief (at least with respect to positions that are overtly religious in nature). For regular companies that offer non-religious services and products, the rules are much more restrictive and you would have to look at actual conduct rather than the naked fact of religious affiliation. A wiccan might not be able to hold a job as an ED nurse if she were required by her religion to display numerous dangling body piercings that could become entangled in tubing, patient body parts, etc. (not to single out witches but this is a matter I actually had to deal with). In this particular case, I canmpt imagine any defense that has been approved by any appellate court. Novel defense indeed.

    5. Re:It doesn't work like that. by tomhudson · · Score: 1, Troll

      "Then again, we are talking about Scientology^Wreligion, which is more of a business than anything."

      There, fixed it for you.

      Religions don't pay their fair share of taxes on their income. Therefore, I have to pay more in taxes, to make up for their not paying. I end up subsidizing religion, which goes against my religious beliefs as an atheist. This is an obvious case of religious discrimination built into the tax practices.

      Why should atheists, or followers of any particular religion, be forced to subsidize the religious practices of others?

    6. Re:It doesn't work like that. by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Funny

      If your boss happens to be a member of the opposite sex, it's bound to radically affect your job security one way or another...

    7. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

      You can be effectively fired for refusing to break a law in an environment where law-breaking is so serious that if you were to draw attention to it with a wrongful dismissal suit, there would be no employment to come back to. :)

    8. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Good luck proving that their reason was religious preference, though.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    9. Re:It doesn't work like that. by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Informative

      The first amendment isn't a restriction on individuals or companies; it's a restriction (at least in theory) on the government. The Civil Right Act of 1964 prevents employers from discriminating based in religion (amongst other things), which is based on the regulation of interstate commerce.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    10. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Jeian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As one of my professors loved to say:

      You can fire someone for no reason, but you can't fire them for the wrong reason.

    11. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, doesn't believing in ancient (or even modern) nonsense demonstrate a severe lack of critical thinking skills? I believe that could have a negative impact on job performance. What if their religious belief is having a negative impact on their job? You still can't fire that person?

    12. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but you could give him a blow job.

    13. Re:It doesn't work like that. by SBFCOblivion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Forcing someone to actively practice a religion is probably illegal

      There's no 'probably' about it. It is illegal.

      but requiring someone to be knowledgeable in the religions practices even if it requires training, probably isn't anymore illegal than requiring someone to receive training about how to operate a piece of machinery.

      Cause that makes sense. A company that develops software would have need of its employees being knowledgeable in any religion.

    14. Re:It doesn't work like that. by SeaDuck79 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Religions more than carry their weight in society. They don't pay taxes, but they do provide services to the community that more than make up for that, which would cost the state far more to provide on its own than the tax revenue it would gain.

      Furthermore, many of the great institutions in America were started by churches, including most hospitals and the primary school system. All were run as non-profits, and most still are. If a church is making a profit that they aren't re-investing in ministry to the community in which they live, there's something wrong with that church.

    15. Re:It doesn't work like that. by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope. Religion is fundamentally belief in a deity or a particular set of values or both. Believing in a deity does not indicate anything wrong with critical thinking skills any more than believing in string theory. Both involve belief in things that are currently untestable. Similarly, in many ways, the rules of mathematics are arbitrary. The operations have some basis in reason, but so too do nearly all religious rules, when examined in the context of conditions at the time and place those rules were established.

      This is, of course, ignoring the question of people who continue to dogmatically believe in something even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's a completely different matter altogether. However, such dogmatism is not an inherent characteristic of all religions, nor inherently true of all religious people. Thus, painting religion in general with such a broad brush just makes you look every bit as closed-minded and arrogant as you are portraying religious people to be.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    16. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't hire anyone better looking than me.

      It's not my fault that precludes all gays, atheists, and liberals from working for me.

    17. Re:It doesn't work like that. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Good luck proving that their reason was religious preference, though.

      Have you ever heard of a jury trial? With a huge portion of our society being christian, they have a good chance of having a bunch of people rule against them simply because they're afraid a company might be discriminating and would not want the same to happen to then. That's really all it takes.

    18. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Dan541 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can I be fired for being an atheist?

      It would not be religious discrimination.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    19. Re:It doesn't work like that. by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Religions more than carry their weight in society.

      That is total and utter bullshit. There is more than adequate proof throughout the ages that religion retards society. It is the basis of many of the wars we have fought and continue to fight, it is the basis of much of the discrimination that we still see practiced, and it is the basis of many teachings that threaten the future of mankind on this planet - such as the ban on birth control by the Catholic church.

      They don't pay taxes, but they do provide services to the community that more than make up for that, which would cost the state far more to provide on its own than the tax revenue it would gain.

      Not true. They use the provision of these "services" as the basis for spreading their beliefs. You can't get the "services" without the propaganda. If you want that, go work for Diskeeper.

      Lets see what religion brings to the table right now:

      1. over-population
      2. the Taliban, the whole middle east problem, etc.,
      3. willful ignorance and disparagement of scientific teaching
      4. intolerance towards "the different" - gays, lesbians, transgendered and transsexuals
      5. Sarah Palin republicans, and the warping of the political process to pander to religion
      6. rejection of medical treatment (see Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, etc)
      7. a breeding ground for extreme cults - after all, if you can accept the craziness of mainstream religion, why not take it up a notch ...
      8. "right to life" for the brain-dead, and "execution is a just punishment" ...
      9. "you're not praying enough | you're not right with the lord | you must be suffering because you've sinned | you don't have enough faith" mentality
      10. lack of equality for women

      The Bible, like many religious texts, is hate literature writ big.

      Furthermore, many of the great institutions in America were started by churches, including most hospitals and the primary school system.

      And that just means that the money was there, and that it could have been just as easily raised by taxation, keeping religion out of it. So, why did religion do this? So that they could get their religious teachings as part of the system. Start class with prayer. Keep a cross in the classroom. Provide jobs for the faithful, rather than for secular teachers.

      Fuck that shit. The world wil be better off once the last religion is abandoned.

    20. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Religions don't pay their fair share of taxes on their income.

      In theory, religious institutions (how can a religion have an income?) are non-profit organizations, where you don't have a dozen executives getting paid millions of dollars and owning a different mansion for every month of the year. Other than the one or two religious leaders and office and custodial staff, nearly all of the work is done voluntarily by members of the congregation.

      In reality, there are a few assholes that make the rest look bad, just like any other group.

    21. Re:It doesn't work like that. by evanbd · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of nonreligious tax-exempt nonprofits. If you wanted to have an organization of atheists (or simply religion-neutral) that did similar things to a church, it wouldn't be hard to get tax exempt status. The government is just as happy to subsidize atheist softball leagues as church softball leagues.

      Even as an atheist, churches getting tax-exempt status is something I have trouble objecting to.

    22. Re:It doesn't work like that. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      The buildings, etc., aren't free for everyone to use, so they should be taxed the same as any other private building.

      The congregation receives a tangible benefit (a place to meet, hold their shows^sermons, etc), and people pay money for this. This is income, and should be taxed ... same as income from "donation-ware" is taxable as income.

      If people don't want to pay taxes on their churches, etc., let them do like the early church, meet in each others' homes (after all, the word church didn't mean a place of worship, but the body of believers).

      As Jesus said, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars'" . Taxes on church property and income are part of that.

    23. Re:It doesn't work like that. by dprovine · · Score: 1

      Forcing someone to actively practice a religion is probably illegal, but requiring someone to be knowledgeable in the religions practices even if it requires training, probably isn't[.]

      "Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips." (Exodus 23:13)

      I have encountered people who take this very seriously; they will not say the names of the months or the days of the week. (Some old Quakers were like this too; they have "First Day School", and on old tombstones at the local Meetinghouse the dates are like "4th Month 23, 1782" -- they don't use the names of the months.)

      SO, if these Scientology classes even require saying the names of deities, they have already gone over the limit of denying another person's free exercise of his religion.

    24. Re:It doesn't work like that. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of nonreligious tax-exempt nonprofits.

      Most large churches run at a large enough income to cover salaries, etc. In some cases, in the millions. Then there are the TV shows, which are undeniably a business venture - they're advertising, same as any other infomercial.

      The increase in assets, year to year, is profit, and should be taxed.

    25. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Jury trials are reserved for criminal matters; for civil matters like this, it's generally just a bench judge ruling.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    26. Re:It doesn't work like that. by JK_the_Slacker · · Score: 1

      Begging your pardon, but I pay my taxes, and I don't get subsidized by your money or that of any other. So just what are you talking about?

      --
      I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
    27. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And yet, you can fire someone for believing in string theory legally but you can't fire someone for believing in a magical man in the sky.

    28. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Services such as...? There are secular non-profits and humanitarian/charity organizations out there in the world too, you know.

    29. Re:It doesn't work like that. by evanbd · · Score: 1

      And there are nonreligious nonprofits that have large budgets and asset growth. I can certainly see deciding that there should be no such thing as a tax exempt nonprofit, but I don't really see a reason to pick on churches.

    30. Re:It doesn't work like that. by story645 · · Score: 1

      actively practice a religion is probably illegal, but requiring someone to be knowledgeable in the religions practices even if it requires training, probably isn't anymore illegal than requiring someone to receive training about how to operate a piece of machinery.

      I somehow doubt that, as I know of quite a few people teaching in Jewish schools who are pretty clueless about Jewish laws and aren't formally trained 'cause they're not teaching the religious courses. Seriously, if it's got nothing to do with the job (and I can see it actually kind of being reasonable in a school setting) it's a violation to make it mandatory. Not least of which 'cause it probably violates someone else's right to practice their religion in peace. (Or hell, it flat out could violate a tenant of the religion is prayer or going into a church are involved.)

      --
      open source modern art: laser taggi
    31. Re:It doesn't work like that. by story645 · · Score: 1

      Cause that makes sense. A company that develops software would have need of its employees being knowledgeable in any religion.

      My friend works for a company that makes religious software, so occasionally maybe. Though even then, probably just the person/people in the company responsible for the content, and he'd probably be hired with that in mind.

      --
      open source modern art: laser taggi
    32. Re:It doesn't work like that. by SeaDuck79 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I would posit that the "hate literature writ big" would accurately describe your entire post. That anti-religion thing has sure made you a better person, huh?

      Christianity, properly practiced, is none of the things you describe it to be. I go to a church that practices it properly. Not one full of legalistic judgmentalism, just full of serving one another and our community. Can your atheistic "community" say it does that? For free?

    33. Re:It doesn't work like that. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Check the 7th amendment.

      In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

      A job is certainly has a value exceeding $20.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    34. Re:It doesn't work like that. by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can I be fired for being an atheist?

      Depends.

      Atheism firmly and adamantly believes there is no God. If you're Agnostic, you don't care one way or the other and thus open minded. The difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is in that one explicitly denies God exists while the other just doesn't care nor has no opinion about it.

      I would say Atheism is a form of religion due to it being dogmatic in nature.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    35. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Ironica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Religions more than carry their weight in society. They don't pay taxes, but they do provide services to the community that more than make up for that, which would cost the state far more to provide on its own than the tax revenue it would gain.

      I challenge you to back up that statement with any verifiable data. Because churches don't have to file form 990, there's NO way to verify that they do indeed put substantial money back into the community. Some do, some don't. (And some own the office building across the street, and have just installed really gorgeous travertine mosaics in the elevator lobbies of all the floors they occupy.)

      Based on good estimates of how much churches actually spend on works, it turns out that people who give only to secular charities end up putting MORE money back into the community. This is because most charities run at 10-20% admin overhead, and churches run much higher, so much less of the money donated to the church actually goes to program.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    36. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Ironica · · Score: 1

      Even as an atheist, churches getting tax-exempt status is something I have trouble objecting to.

      I don't have trouble objecting to churches qualifying as non-profits under the same rules as secular charities and institutions. However, they DON'T have to play by the same rules. They don't have to file a form 990, and they don't have to meet the same requirements.

      You could abolish the existing tax exemption for "churches," and many churches would qualify under the other rules. Let those have tax-exempt status, and let the rest get fairly taxed on their income.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    37. Re:It doesn't work like that. by mugnyte · · Score: 1

        Tell them your a nihilist instead and confuse 'em.

    38. Re:It doesn't work like that. by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      All logical systems need some set of axioms. What it comes down to is what you take as axioms. String theory is untestable (I believe it is provably never testable...), as is the existence of a deity. String theory is based on very simple axioms that are rather hard to deny. Axioms become harder to accept the more complicated they become.

    39. Re:It doesn't work like that. by something_wicked_thi · · Score: 1

      There are some circumstances where you may fire someone on religious grounds. The law says only that you must make a reasonable effort to accommodate a person's religion. If your employee is taking incense into a clean room, you can tell him to stop. He can burn it outside the clean room in some designated area if you are able to provide such. That would be a reasonable alternative. If the employee refuses, you can fire him.

    40. Re:It doesn't work like that. by rbanffy · · Score: 0, Troll

      Tickling may be construed as torture. You should try waterboarding.

    41. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      By your logic "disbelief in pink unicorns" must be one of the world's most popular religions.

    42. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't agree with that.

      I believe that while their may be a good or higher power, there's no evidence for it whatsoever.

      As Richard Dawkins says, you can't prove something doesn't exist, so I'm agnostic about god in the same way that I'm agnostic about fairies in the garden. It's possible, but so incredibly unlikely that I may as well call myself an atheist.

      Atheism isn't a religion because there is no structure, no teachings; merely "I don't believe in that".

    43. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Wow, I'm actually surprised how narrow minded everyone seems to be about this.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    44. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      Please cite sources, I can just as easily say that you're wrong.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    45. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Digital+End · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Blah blah, we've all heard this stupid defintion nit picking before, here's the other side of it as expected. (sorry, agnostisism is always presented as some bloody middle ground)

      One refers to if you think god is knowable (gnostic vs agnostic), one refers to personal belief (Is there a god). I'm for example am an Agnostic Atheist... normally I don't bother to mention agnostic because it's unnessisary. I also don't mention a thousand other clarifiying words to pinpoint it.

      Agnostic means you don't think it's possible for humanity to know if there is a god or not, it has nothing to do with if you believe there is one or not.

      Example; I'm agnostic to there being pink elephants in the core of the earth. I don't believe they are there, but I don't think we really have any way to find out.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    46. Re:It doesn't work like that. by houghi · · Score: 1

      I never had a boss who I wanted to tickle. It would have been torture for me. Now in other departments there are some people I would love to tickle. I however doubt that that will help with job security.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    47. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Believing in a deity does not indicate anything wrong with critical thinking skills any more than believing in string theory. Both involve belief in things that are currently untestable.

      Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong.

      You have just demonstrated that you have a fundamental inability to distinguish between religion and scientific theory.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    48. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Can I be fired for being an atheist?

      No.

      It would not be religious discrimination.

      Yes, it would.

      Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    49. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say Atheism is a form of religion due to it being dogmatic in nature.

      Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is a world of difference between the two. Religion you are basing your views on imaginary and unprovable stuff written down ages ago. Atheism looks to science to reject the claims made by religion. With scientific reason, the balance of evidence refuting the claims made by religion becomes overwhelming and you are forced to conclude that god(s), and thus the basis of religion, is incorrect.

    50. Re:It doesn't work like that. by JamesP · · Score: 1

      I would play it safe and claim I'm a Pastafarian...

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    51. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Samschnooks · · Score: 2, Funny

      I prefer to be an ignostic. It doesn't matter if God exists or not because we have free will; therefore, I just ignore the existence of God or whether God exists in the first place.

    52. Re:It doesn't work like that. by he-sk · · Score: 1

      There's nothing dogmatic about atheism. If God were to magically appear and make a convincing case that he's really real, then most atheists would probably concede that they were wrong.

      We just don't think it's going to happen, ever.

      Agnostics don't have a monopoly on open-mindedness.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    53. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you.

      Please take your good name back. Do something about the nutjobs who call themselves Christians and use 'freedom of religion' as an excuse for everything, and get away with it.

    54. Re:It doesn't work like that. by ZekoMal · · Score: 1

      Ahahahaha -coughs- sorry, that was my BS detector going off.
      It's incredibly easy for people of faith to defend their religion. After all, they went to that church and wasted the equivalent of years of their life within it every Sunday. Somebody telling them otherwise would be ridiculous!
      Religion carries its' weight in the same way a parasite does: it may not harm the host right away, hell, it might even help the host; but it will kill the host if the host no longer benefits it. Right now, it sees gays as a problem in society, so instead of helping us, it is fighting to keep their rights down (all while saying they strongly support gay rights and love gays, so that they do not lose any of their loyal members).
      The reason why religion starts things, is because people give them millions of dollars. Furthermore, whatever they start, ends up supporting them more than anyone else. If you want this shiny new thing, you better be good at pretending to be religious, or else you can't have it.

    55. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that shit. The world wil be better off once the last religion is abandoned.

      Wow, people miss how much is just culture, and blame it on religion. A religion is just a set of beliefs that aren't questioned / probed over and over by individuals. A lot of the cultural/societal beliefs of the time become incorporated into a religion as it forms.

      Science is just another "religion" for the masses (I'm not talking about PhDs studying in their field, I'm talking about average joe's and the way the scientific 'facts' are presented and believed by masses.) How many times do people question "evolution" even though it hasn't been proven via the "scientific method"? How often do people question whether Homosexuality is a choice or just 'part of who a person is'? This last one is still forming, but a lot of people have a faith-based (as opposed to testing and fact-based) view one way or the other on that one. So, religious, just not in the same form as the 'classic religions'. Same mechanism powering it though.

      Until the mechanism can be changed / nullified, religions will be here. Trying to remove them, instead of understand and get beyond the mechanism and how people work, is how to make the world better off. Otherwise, you just compound the problem.

    56. Re:It doesn't work like that. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      If you make any donations to support your religious activities and take a tax deduction for them, it means you're paying less than someone who puts their money to other uses. IOW, your pastime|hobby|cult is being subsidized by others.

    57. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Funny. I'd say that it has a value of $0. I certainly don't know what case law has held for that, though.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    58. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Lets see what religion brings to the table right now:
      over-population

      The world's largest country is, at least nominally, atheist.

      Also, over-population is a ridiculous term used largely by environmentalist wackos that put animal life ahead of human life. You can start depopulation with yourself, thanks.


      the Taliban, the whole middle east problem, etc.,

      As much as I detest the jihadis, religion is merely a part of the problem. Lack of distribution of wealth is a MUCH greater issue than Islam. The richest 0.001% of the muslim world gets to keep 99% of the money, and has x4 as many wives. It drives a certain percentage of the populace nuts. This would happen no matter what you replaced Islam with.


      intolerance towards "the different" - gays, lesbians, transgendered and transsexuals

      Yeah, cause no atheist look at transexuals weird.


      a breeding ground for extreme cults - after all, if you can accept the craziness of mainstream religion, why not take it up a notch ...

      There are plenty of cults with no basis in a religion, like [deleted by threat of lawsuit]. See also several 'cult of personality' types - North Korea, Maoist China, parts of Iraq.

    59. Re:It doesn't work like that. by RealGrouchy · · Score: 2

      There are plenty of nonreligious non-profit organizations out there that do charitable activities.

      The fact that the groups are nonreligious does not make them "atheistic"; religious and nonreligious people alike can participate, and not be immersed in an environment that preaches things they don't believe, (except for those people who consider absence of preaching of their religious view to be a form of preaching).

      And before you go calling me a hypocrite, I don't like corporate branding either. The Ronald McDonald foundation has done much less [i]for[/i] children than McDonald's restaurants have done [i]to[/i] children.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    60. Re:It doesn't work like that. by winwar · · Score: 1

      Of course, you can still be fired for those reasons :) And if the employer is smart you won't have any recourse....

    61. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There is more than adequate proof throughout the ages that religion retards society.

      So what's your excuse for Stalin? He was an atheist, and he managed to top religion's death toll (if indeed those wars are actually attributable to religion) in a single century. Worse, many of the purges were because he saw religious folks the way you see religion.

      What does atheism bring to the table, again?

      And I'm going to grill you over whether it's a belief or a lack of belief(s) if you start pretending all atheists stand for something.

    62. Re:It doesn't work like that. by winwar · · Score: 1

      "Please cite sources, I can just as easily say that you're wrong."

      Well, you could look up the charities. Of course, churches tend not to provide that data. Which likely means that their overhead is obscene. After all, their purpose is continuing the faith, not charity.

    63. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 1

      The problems you list are sides effect of the mechanisms that different philosophies and faiths evolved to survive for thousands of years.

      Some people can see past the dogma and find the core values being handed down by religion. The 'payload' if you will is morality. While I personally don't need a fictional father figure shaking his finger at me from the sky, and bribing me into doing what is right, there are still plenty of people that do.

    64. Re:It doesn't work like that. by moortak · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    65. Re:It doesn't work like that. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Atheism brings to the table the lack of a particular widespead class of flaws called religion. It is a lack of a certain variety of irrationality.

      Just as a lack of viruses does not cause health, a lack of religion does not cause rationality. Atheism removes just one impediment to a good life.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    66. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Degrees · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about you take a look? The church I attended was happy to let any one look at their finances - because indeed, they were doing the right thing. So the obvious answer to your challenge is: walk to the nearest church, and ask the pastor if you can look at his books. State that you've been told that churches do charitable work, and you don't believe it's as valuable as you've been told. Ask the pastor how many hours of counseling he does per week. Ask how many meetings are held per week. Ask how much money the church donates to outside organizations to send doctors and nurses to third world countries on childhood vaccination missions. Ask how much of the billable time (if it were a private sector business / public sector clinic) is actually billed.

      It's obvious to me that the GP is right. It's also obvious to me from your attitude that you won't believe anything less than the truth as seen by your own eyes. I'm OK with that. March your eyes down to the closest church and check it out.

      Of course, if the closest church to you is the Scientology Center, I'm screwed. ;-)

      --
      "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
    67. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      It would not be religious discrimination.

      The discrimination itself would have to be carried out by a religious boss, who would fire you for acting contrary to his/her religious beliefs. That sounds like religious discrimination (i.e., discrimination because of religious reasons) to me.

      I suspect you couldn't fire someone because you believe them to be the "spawn of Satan" or "Xenu's servant" either, regardless of what the employee thinks in the matter.

    68. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      I would say Atheism is a form of religion due to it being dogmatic in nature.

      Religion is not defined as a dogmatic practice, even if a good deal of religions have dogmatic features. I don't think that Buddhists, Unitarians, or New-Agers are particularly dogmatic (dogmatism defined as "positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant," and "a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises"). Unitarians, in particular, stress the use of reason and diversity, whether or not you or I agree with them.

      Even if you're stuck in a certain frame of mind (like a New-Ager who believes in auras and healing crystals), I'd point to the lack of a centralized, specific, instructional dogma or institution as responsible for those beliefs.

      Atheists are in the same camp. There are as many forms as atheism as there are atheists, and to lump them into one dogma does no justice to the reality of the situation. Even to say that all atheists believe in rationality and science is a misnomer: I've met plenty who do it just because they think religious people are stupid, or it's how they were raised, or as a form of rebellion against parents/church, or as a form of conformity to appeal to an atheist member of the opposite sex.

      Atheism firmly and adamantly believes there is no God. If you're Agnostic, you don't care one way or the other and thus open minded.

      Modern, thinking atheists usually don't hold to the absolute notion of no gods. They just don't think that the Christians, or Hindus, or Greeks have it right. They might even disagree with the word "god"--an entity of incredible power might still exist somewhere in the uni/multiverse, though it would abide by natural laws, even if we don't yet know those laws. A personal god who performs miracles, listens to prayers, and created humans is not believed, because the evidence points elsewhere.

      The difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is in that one explicitly denies God exists while the other just doesn't care nor has no opinion about it.

      Agnostics are not necessarily defined by a lack of opinion. Strong agnosticism points to the idea that it is impossible to know whether gods exist, so don't waste your time with the question. So I wouldn't let agnostics off the hook if you just think they're lazy. They can irritate even atheists.

    69. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      Cause that makes sense. A company that develops software would have need of its employees being knowledgeable in any religion.

      It helps knowing about another culture or belief system if you want to deal with diverse people. I can see this falling under a form of "diversity training" (like it or not), though I strongly disagree with focusing on a particular belief system with the intensity that is described in the article.

    70. Re:It doesn't work like that. by karlandtanya · · Score: 1

      Finally, somebody besides a fictional archaeologist who understands the difference between knowledge and belief.

      I can know only what I have observed or logically deduced from observation. Knowledge can be modified through experience or the presentation and interpretation of evidence (that is, argument).

      I believe whatever in the hell I choose to for no reason at all except that's what I want to believe. Belief can only be modified by the personal choice of the believer.

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    71. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Religions do not require theism. Buddhism is a religion, but doesn't require belief in a deity. Many Buddhists *do* believe in deities, but not simply because they are Buddhist.

    72. Re:It doesn't work like that. by dgatwood · · Score: 0

      Science cannot require blind faith. An untestable theory requires blind faith. Therefore, an untestable theory is not science. String theory is an untestable theory. Therefore, string theory is not science. Q.E.D.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    73. Re:It doesn't work like that. by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Religions more than carry their weight in society.

      Yeah, like pushing Prop 8...

    74. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A wiccan might not be able to hold a job as an ED nurse if she were required by her religion to display numerous dangling body piercings that could become entangled in tubing, patient body parts, etc. (not to single out witches but this is a matter I actually had to deal with).

      Ah, but that Wiccan, if they were indeed fired over this matter, would not be fired for being a Wiccan: they'd be fired for wearing jewelry that interferes with their ability to do their job. If anyone else did the same thing without citing religious reasons and then get fired for refusing to remove them, nobody would bat an eyelash at that.

      The Wiccan in question may bring up their religion, but - and this is important - it'd be THEM who did so. The employer, throughout the whole process, would be entirely agnostic, and would at no point care about the religion of the employee at all.

      I think these two things - religion obviously and demonstrably NOT being the reason for the firing, and there being ANOTHER reason for the firing - would quash any argument that it's religious discrimination.

    75. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Courageous · · Score: 1

      I don't really like agnosticism. The statement "god is unknowable" per se assumes that the hypothesized god has properties that makes it unobservable either directly or indirectly. If we are to believe that about this hypothesized god whatzit, we already assert a great deal about the hypothesized thing, do we not?

      C//

    76. Re:It doesn't work like that. by JK_the_Slacker · · Score: 1

      Technically, I'm giving my money for a cause I believe in, a greater cause. I am not taking that money from anyone, I'm earning it, which makes it mine to do with as I please. Nobody is "subsidizing" this in any way, shape, or form.

      --
      I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
    77. Re:It doesn't work like that. by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      I hope that was a joke. You could also choose to ignore the existence of gravity, but you would still have to live with the consequences.

    78. Re:It doesn't work like that. by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      Example; I'm agnostic to there being pink elephants in the core of the earth. I don't believe they are there, but I don't think we really have any way to find out.

      I think I know what you are trying to say, but you should find a better example. Checking whether there are pink elephants in the core of the earth could conceivably be fairly easy if we really cared about checking. Maybe try an example about a historical event. E.g. who shot JFK.

    79. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Scientific theory is falsifiable. Religious faith is not.

      String theory is falsifiable. Q.E.D.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    80. Re:It doesn't work like that. by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      yes, however it typically would not be entirely atheists, because they wouldn't care what religion etc the others are, it would be a group that goes by another name and does other things aswell as serving the community.

      An example being the Lions club international, there is no religious requirements there, only people who want to help their community, for free

      I do completely agree that being a 'proper' christian does convey some very good traits, but you do not need to be a good christian to get them, only a good person.

    81. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Samschnooks · · Score: 1

      I hope that was a joke. You could also choose to ignore the existence of gravity, but you would still have to live with the consequences.

      What consequences? If God existed, He would be forgiving and understand my feeble humanity and forgive me. That's assuming I didn't turn out the way He made me - including my preference to Zen Buddhism. This is all assuming the New Testament, Loving God not the evil, childish, pathetic excuse for a deity in the Old Testament - which is nothing but ancient Hebrew myth.

      And no, I wasn't joking and please don't commit blasphemy by praying for my soul. Whenever you pray for something, you make God your servant; thereby, making yourself more important than Him committing blasphemy in the process.

    82. Re:It doesn't work like that. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You can be effectively fired for refusing to break a law in an environment where law-breaking is so serious that if you were to draw attention to it with a wrongful dismissal suit, there would be no employment to come back to. :)

      You can crush them at will, so they pull the shots. Makes sense :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    83. Re:It doesn't work like that. by neomunk · · Score: 1

      I would think that belief in string theory could very well be protected under freedom of religion. In fact, I think even an Atheist could make this claim, being that mainstream Atheism seems to be faith in either non-conscious math or non-conscious physics.

      As for myself, I'm a monotheist with a strong belief that a possibly-conscious math interacts (or may be the same as) a possibly-conscious spacetime foundation. I would hope that if I were presented with what I consider sufficient evidence of string theory to incorporate it into my greater belief system, that it WOULD be protected, as it very much WOULD be a part of what I consider my 'religion'.

      That being said, I have no idea if this has been tested in court or not, and I fully realize that the courts have only a 'flirtatious' relationship to common sense may times, so I could be very wrong.

    84. Re:It doesn't work like that. by neomunk · · Score: 1

      Therein lies the crux. I can't do it, SeaDuck can't do it, because you're not ASKING us. You're watching TV, and we all know how far the biggest media player will go to ensure an accurate view of any particular groups philosophy, right? I think their technique goes something like 'find the biggest eye-ball catching wack-job you can who calls himself STORY_FOCUS_OF_THE_DAY and plaster him on the headliner shows'. That's what happens. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd think that there was a plot to increase raw divisiveness between people, but I'm enough of a cynic to think that it's really about the money, because so many people buy sensationalist stories.

    85. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forcing someone to actively practice a religion is probably illegal

      There's no 'probably' about it. It is illegal.

      but requiring someone to be knowledgeable in the religions practices even if it requires training, probably isn't anymore illegal than requiring someone to receive training about how to operate a piece of machinery.

      Cause that makes sense. A company that develops software would have need of its employees being knowledgeable in any religion.

      So if I am making a game called, let's say, "Dave vs. Goliath" or maybe "Supper before Crucifixion" then I don't need (& should be required to be ignorant of) religious knowledge? I don't support the CoS at all, but yes there are legitimate reasons why someone should have various types of knowledge to do a job.

      As long as they only require it as "information training" and do not require participation or belief/adherence, it's not really illegal. But what really is going on here, is that the CoS likes to use various companies like this one as operational recruiting fronts. They really should be investigated for fraud & tax evasion, etc.

    86. Re:It doesn't work like that. by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      If God existed, He would be forgiving and understand my feeble humanity and forgive me....
      This is all assuming the New Testament, Loving God.

      Even assuming the New Testament, Loving God forgiveness does not happen without repentance which is kind of hard without belief (see Jesus on the Unforgivable Sin).

      Whenever you pray for something, you make God your servant

      Evidently Jesus didn't think so. Matthew 5:44 "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

    87. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientific theory is falsifiable. Religious faith is not.

      String theory is falsifiable. Q.E.D.

      In other words, you believe String Theory is falsifiable just because you want it to be a scientific theory. Making an inept attempt at a syllogism does not show how String Theory is falsifiable.

    88. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution is not falsifiable. Most of cosmology is not falsifiable.

      Q.E.D. yourself.

    89. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Ironica · · Score: 1

      How about you take a look? The church I attended was happy to let any one look at their finances - because indeed, they were doing the right thing. So the obvious answer to your challenge is: walk to the nearest church, and ask the pastor if you can look at his books. State that you've been told that churches do charitable work, and you don't believe it's as valuable as you've been told. Ask the pastor how many hours of counseling he does per week. Ask how many meetings are held per week. Ask how much money the church donates to outside organizations to send doctors and nurses to third world countries on childhood vaccination missions. Ask how much of the billable time (if it were a private sector business / public sector clinic) is actually billed.

      It's obvious to me that the GP is right. It's also obvious to me from your attitude that you won't believe anything less than the truth as seen by your own eyes. I'm OK with that. March your eyes down to the closest church and check it out.

      Of course, if the closest church to you is the Scientology Center, I'm screwed. ;-)

      Yes... every church that will open their books and answer honestly is doing the "right thing." And every church that tells me to take a hike is well within their rights; even though their activities are, in effect, publicly subsidized by their tax-exempt status, they have no responsibility to disclose that information to the public (i.e. me).

      The nearest church is across the street. It's not the "Church" of Scientology (which is about a mile up the street) but a Foursquare Gospel charismatic, founded by Aimee Semple MacPherson. And the office building that my company (a secular non-profit healthcare provider, with a 990 on file and 10% admin overhead) is headquartered in is owned by the church, as is a lot of the surrounding real estate. They occupy four or five floors in this building, and the floors they're on have all just had very expensive-looking remodeling done. Maybe a parishioner donated all that travertine, though.

      As I said, many churches do put much of that money back into the community (though I'd be surprised if more than a handful run at as low an overhead as the average secular non-profit). The problem is, they are not required to demonstrate that to the public, even though they benefit from tax-exempt status. And, because of that, many DON'T put substantial proportions of their income back into the community, so they're basically parasitical in nature. It should not be my responsibility to walk into every church and ask to see their books to determine if they're a "good guy" or not. They should have the burden of proving that they're worthy of non-profit tax exemption.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    90. Re:It doesn't work like that. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      "Can your atheistic "community" say it does that? For free?"

      It's not "for free." You get a tax deduction for subsidizing your religion, which means that atheists have to pay more than their fair share.

    91. Re:It doesn't work like that. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      What utter garbage. Next you'll be saying that evolution is "only a theory".

      BTW - we've proven natural selection plenty of times. Ever drink cows' milk? That was done by selective breeding - the same process that works in natural selection - traits that work to ensure survival long enough to breed in an environment get passed on. The particular environment for a cow is to give milk in sufficient quantities so that the farmer will breed it, and the genes get passed on to the next generation.

      Or the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections.

    92. Re:It doesn't work like that. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      You get a tax deduction for your donations to your church, which means your religious beliefs are being subsidized by taxpayers who don't believe.

      Remember, render unto Caesar and all that ...

    93. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Degrees · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that some churches are better than others, and that the good ones will gladly open their books for you. I don't know that most secular non-profits are more thrifty than most churches however. We can probably agree that public sector organizations have some large inefficiencies. (I used to work for the local County Health Department, and fully know both the good and the bad of a government run health department).

      As far as tax-exempt status goes, you do know that churches pay property tax, right? So they don't necessarily get all those local services 100% gratis. They don't pay income tax, so the federal level services *are* free - but now we're talking military protection from invading armies, the EPA, Ag Department, National Parks, banking regulations, and bond debt service, et. cetera. They also don't collect sales tax; so the city (not county) services *are* free. The funding can get a little blurry - the police officer patrolling the street is probably city funded (sales tax), but the officer guarding the prisoner in jail is almost certainly county (property tax). If you live in a state without sales tax, then the church does benefit a little more than those in other states.

      I'll also point out that clergy don't pay income tax, but they don't get Social Security either. And only the mega-churches provide retirement plans. I know my little church couldn't dream of it. I don't know if your employer takes out SSI. But if they do, that's a tax funded safety net you have because you pay taxes. Don't assume that those that don't pay taxes get all the benefits you do.

      Lastly, there's the difference between non-profits that get to bill the government for services provided, and churches, which don't. Technically, my local hospital is a non-profit, but the amount of money it sucks down is shameful. $60 for a single tablet of Motrin. It's clearly thievery; but, as long as they can spend 9/10ths of their income, they can claim they only cost 10% admin overhead. I think that a church that hosts an AA meeting is a far more benevolent organization than, say, The American Red Cross, who takes donated blankets and sells them to disaster victims. The charity provided by a church is 100% charity. Not so with most secular non-profits.

      I can see where you don't trust an organization that doesn't publish it's finances. But I've also taken enough bookkeeping and seen enough financial finagling (in all sorts of organizations) to know that a claimed overhead rate, even when published, isn't a valid measure of trustworthiness. Which is why I suggested that to know the real truth requires actual in-person knowledge. Even if they published their ratio of income/outgo, that isn't as valuable as knowing if the travertine is in fact a gift from a wealthy parishioner. And if it isn't, shame on them.

      --
      "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
    94. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Ironica · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that some churches are better than others, and that the good ones will gladly open their books for you. I don't know that most secular non-profits are more thrifty than most churches however.

      It's hard to be sure, since there aren't form 990s to look at from the church side, but surveys have generally found this to be the case. I'm afraid I can't dig up the cite at the moment, though :-/. I read about it several years back.

      As far as tax-exempt status goes, you do know that churches pay property tax, right?

      I live in California. Property tax is a joke. We make it up with sales tax revenue.

      They don't pay income tax, so the federal level services *are* free - but now we're talking military protection from invading armies, the EPA, Ag Department, National Parks, banking regulations, and bond debt service, et. cetera.

      And I don't have a problem with that per se; after all, I work for an organization that also gets that all for free. My problem is only that we have to follow rules that the churches don't, just because they're a church. Our organization was founded by a bunch of doctors; we have to file a form 990. The guys across the street were founded by a charismatic preacher, they don't. Why is that reasonable or fair?

      Lastly, there's the difference between non-profits that get to bill the government for services provided, and churches, which don't.

      1) Non-profits only get to bill the government for services if they apply for funding and qualify. Many of those funding apps are highly competitive.

      2) Many FBOs bill the government for services too. Google "Charitable Choice." Heck, even before it was passed, 50% of Catholic Charities budget came from Federal funding.

      think that a church that hosts an AA meeting is a far more benevolent organization than, say, The American Red Cross, who takes donated blankets and sells them to disaster victims. The charity provided by a church is 100% charity. Not so with most secular non-profits.

      See, I see this in the opposite light: most services provided by churches have strings attached. You want dinner from the Sally Army? You're going to hear a sermon. Want more help? You need to get more involved in the god-stuff. An AA meeting hosted in a church isn't a truly publicly-accessible resource; you need to believe in a god to use AA, and the church generally doesn't strip iconography for the purposes of such meetings, meaning you're subject to their message the entire time you're there. It's not much different than a company donating school supplies emblazoned with their logo, to legitimize targeting their advertising at children.

      And heck, the ARC (not a stellar example of non-profit management these days) does have to make public where their revenue comes from, including selling blankets. You have the RIGHT to know they're doing that, and then can direct your money elsewhere. Your church has no obligation or responsibility at all to report how it handles the money you donate to it, though. It's a black box.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    95. Re:It doesn't work like that. by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      Bible also says keep your faith to yourself, but I don't see anyone following that rule.

      Pick and chose, pick and chose...

      Matthew 6:1-8. Everyone seems to know Matthew 6:9, no one ever reads the lines before it.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
  5. Re:California is a at will state by batkiwi · · Score: 4, Informative

    At will does not mean "anything they do is legal, you can just leave." It merely means that there is no implied contract about severance or notice.

  6. Well... by actionbastard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's one product I won't be buying anymore. Oh, and before you start, I worked for a company that tried to pull that indoctrination stuff on employees, until several people threatened them with the 'L' word and a few more quit nearly putting the company OOB. They stopped it fast.

    --
    Sig this!
    1. Re:Well... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Would you be so kind as to name the company an/or the religion they tried to push?

    2. Re:Well... by deniable · · Score: 2, Informative

      Look at the German government. I remember hearing that the built-in defrag in XP (Diskeeper extra lite?) had to be removed because of the Scientology connection. OK, this says that it was Win2k and that MS gave them a way to remove it. This has more on the company itself.

    3. Re:Well... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      It they have Business/GOVERNMENT section at their site you can easily understand the stand of USA Govt. in that case.

      Let me remind and sorry to repeat, disk defragmenters need to access entire disk, at sector level, as "super user" (root,admin,whatever).

      The built in defrag in XP is more than that. There is a defrag framework in XP which all developers are supposed to use. I don't know if they actually use it since I am not following Windows too much.

    4. Re:Well... by deniable · · Score: 1

      The built-in defrag framework was built by Diskkeeper and the defrag tool is a cut-down version of DK lite. At least it used to be. Back in WinNT 3, DK had to run a heavily modified version of NT with its own service packs and everything. DK worked with MS to put hooks into the system in NT 4 to allow their product to work without heavily modifying the OS. The actual out-of-the-box defragger was added in Win2K. This is a low-end version of DK Lite and is a front-end to the frame-work you describe.

    5. Re:Well... by schon · · Score: 5, Funny

      several people threatened them with the 'L' word

      Umm.. they threatened to become lesbians?

    6. Re:Well... by palegray.net · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why was the parent post modded flamebait? Honest question, on topic, politely put... maybe it was just the shock of seeing such adherence to policy on Slashdot that caused the mods to go into an epileptic fit and click the wrong mod option...

    7. Re:Well... by cp.tar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now, I have to hand it to the Germans; they really do deal with the CoS as they should: with complete distrust and disapproval.

      BTW, I am fairly active in trying to gat religious education out of Croatian public schools, which probably won't happen due to some unconstitutional contracts with the Vatican. Thus I sympathize greatly with everyone forced to endure religious drivel in their school and/or workplace.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    8. Re:Well... by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      Who the Hell tagged that flamebait? It's a perfectly fair question, what company did do that?

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    9. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's one product I won't be buying anymore. Oh, and before you start, I worked for a company that tried to pull that indoctrination stuff on employees, until several people threatened them with the 'L' word and a few more quit nearly putting the company OOB. They stopped it fast.

      Linux?

    10. Re:Well... by actionbastard · · Score: 1

      Wish I had some mod points...+1 Funny. No, it's the other 'L' word with a capital 'L'.

      --
      Sig this!
    11. Re:Well... by actionbastard · · Score: 1

      My Xmas wish is more mod points...+1 Funny.

      --
      Sig this!
    12. Re:Well... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 3, Funny

      Llamas?

    13. Re:Well... by MarkusQ · · Score: 2, Funny

      several people threatened them with the 'L' word

      Liechtenstein?

      How is that a threat?

      Oh wait, you meant Lieberman, didn't you?

      --MarkusQ

    14. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> until several people threatened them with the 'L' word

      Lesbian? Strange threat...

    15. Re:Well... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Legumes.

    16. Re:Well... by mugnyte · · Score: 1

      Hmm. What 'L' word could be a threat?
        Labia?
        Laryngitis?
        LeisureSuitLarry?
        Lungfish?

      I would definitely feel threatened by a lungfish.

    17. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lasers? Surely that's overkill for just quitting a job?

    18. Re:Well... by rbanffy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Early in my career I worked in a computer distributor for HP (mostly big corporate and government contracts) where all first and second tier managers were from an evangelic church and held a kind of a cult before work started.

      I declared myself an atheist (actually, I joke I lack the faith required to be an atheist) and had no problem. They respected it.

      That was in Brazil, early 90s.

    19. Re:Well... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Liechtenstein?

      How is that a threat?

      Follow the cash, dude: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/02/2177472.htm

      Coincidentally, Germany is pissed off at Liechtenstein for the same reason that they are pissed off about Scientology. Taxes.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    20. Re:Well... by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      L is for the way you look at me
      O is for the only one I see
      V is very, very extraordinary
      E is even more than anyone that you adore can

    21. Re:Well... by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Lycanthrophy!!!

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    22. Re:Well... by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Louisianan?

    23. Re:Well... by elpostino · · Score: 0

      Llamas?

      We apologise for the fault in the message. Those responsible have been sacked.

    24. Re:Well... by JoCat · · Score: 1

      Oooh! Lead! LEAD!

    25. Re:Well... by dword · · Score: 1

      There's one product I won't be buying anymore.

      And I won't pirate it any more, either!

    26. Re:Well... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Lebanon?

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  7. use Linux and save your money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you used Linux you wouldn't need to buy a defragmenting application.

    1. Re:use Linux and save your money by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      If you engaged your brain you wouldn't post comments that completely miss the point. Posting from a Linux workstation that happens to have a couple of NTFS partitions mounted.

    2. Re:use Linux and save your money by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      If you used Linux you wouldn't need to buy a defragmenting application.

      You don't need to buy one if you use Windows, either. There are several freeware and even open source defragmenters for Windows.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  8. Wrong by dotslashdot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Under title VII, they will lose. Unless the Supreme Court declares Title VII unconstitutional with respect to the 1st Amendment, of course, which they might since the new ones are a bunch of religious fundamentalists. The 1st Amendment does not give anyone a right to impose their religion on others as a condition of employment. http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

    1. Re:Wrong by CajunArson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah... but the first amendment also does not prevent a private employer from discriminating on the basis of religion either, because it is impossible for a private employer to violate the first amendment (see state action doctrine). Instead, the violations (if there are any) are of federal statutory law.. and if a statute is deemed to violate the constitution the constitution will win. It looks like Diskeeper is trying to argue that current statutes that these employees are using to sue them are unconstitutional restraints on their first amendment rights to practice their religion. This is an interesting issue since there definitely are cases where it is completely acceptable to have private discriminate based on religion.... like for example it is perfectly acceptable to prevent non-Catholics from becoming Catholic priests. However, since Diskeeper maintains an outward appearance of being a normal, for-profit company, it will likely not get the extra leeway that an organization based around a particular religion would receive. Scientology is a whack-job cult, but its tax-exempt status is still a matter of law (unless they manage to screw up and lose it again).

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    2. Re:Wrong by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      "... Scientology is a whack-job cult...."

      Cue Tom Cruise ringing your dell bell in 3... 2...

      [can't the government get a smart enough lawyer to permenantely revoke their b.s. religious tax exemptions>]

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    3. Re:Wrong by professionalfurryele · · Score: 0

      I love the way that people keep arguing the legal merits like it is certain that is going to matter.

      All it takes is one closet scientologist judge and you are all royally fucked. Heck it isn't like scientology doesn't hire enough lawyers that they don't have a couple of judges by now.

      These are a bunch of traitorous pseudo-religious wack jobs hell bent on dragging everyone into their crazy little cult and using any method they can get away with (including murder, extortion, separating people from their families) to undermine our free way of life.

      To those in the states, you are steadily approaching the point where if you don't get Scientology under control by reasonable means (locking up it's high ranking members, seizing all it's assets, purging the government of scientology influence) you will find yourselves in a position where patriotic Americans will start fighting back through less pleasant means.

      Incidentally I'm not an American, and I'm not advocating the use of violence against scientologist, I'm just predicting what will happen if this situation isn't brought under control. I will say this however, if it does reach that point, violent revolution may be your only option.

    4. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Scalia, Alito and Thomas JJ and Roberts CJ may be very religious people, but they are all practicing Roman Catholics, and thus pretty much by definition are not fundamentalist.

      If being highly religious influences their opinions unfairly, that is a serious breach of ethics, and should be grounds for considering impeachment.

      Being fundamentalist is not necessary for being unfairly religious. Obvious areas of concern in the case of these Justices might be access to abortion, same sex marriage, stem cell research, and the legality of the death penalty, all of which are opposed by the Roman Catholic Church.

      Kennedy J is also Roman Catholic, incidentally.

      Souter J is Episcopalian. Episcopalians are not fundamentalist by definition.

      Bader-Ginsburg and Breyer JJ are Jewish.

      Stevens J only lists himself as "Protestant".

      Of all of these the only possible fundamentalist Christian is Justice Stevens.

      It is possible that either Justice Bader-Ginsburg or Justice Breyer could be a fundamentalist Jew.

      Consequently, any or all of these three Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States could be a religious fundamentalist.

      Of course the last three sentences are only logical possibilities based on their self-identifications.

    5. Re:Wrong by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      The 1st Amendment does not give anyone a right to impose their religion on others as a condition of employment.

      The First Amendment doesn't give anyone any rights at all. It recognizes some rights, and restricts the government from making laws that would interfere with those rights. By a literal reading of the First, EEO laws are pretty clearly unconstitutional, but the courts have often tended toward pragmatism in letting "good" and "necessary" laws violate the letter of the Constitution.

    6. Re:Wrong by nategoose · · Score: 1

      Actually it may be a very good thing if this case were to reach the Supreme Court since the justices aren't are more likely to make the correct decision when Christianity isn't involved. Religious freedom is easier to appreciate when you're own religion doesn't have the upper hand.

  9. religious discrimination by spazdor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is going to boil down to technicalities about whether Scientology practice (or "tech") is actually a religious experience, or just a workplace management strategy. Scientology has gotten very good at dancing across that line when it suits them.

    When it's time to hand out tax exemptions, they're an association of faith. When they're incorporating Dianetics into secular practices, it's just a communications, planning, and skill development regiment.

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    1. Re:religious discrimination by Kha+Khan · · Score: 2, Informative

      People may also want to see the discussion at Why We Protest.

      Why We Protest Discussion

      WhyWeProtest.net is an internet home for Anonymous.

    2. Re:religious discrimination by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Have the pie or eat it. Choose, but you can only get one. Either you're a church, then you're exempt but can't make people follow your "path" or be laid off because they fail to pray to your god, gods, books, spaceship travellers or whatever you may dance around when the lights go out. Or you're teaching skills and techniques that your workers have to learn, but then you're training your workers and not practicing your faith.

      If this lawsuit somehow, in any way, manages to succeed, I see a lot of real training centers turning into churches to save taxes. We worship knowledge, and we're free to choose our religion, aren't we? So we are the church of ... umm ... dunno, create some Microsoft Certified BS for it and be done with it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Too bad... by Junta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That as the law stands today, it is a flagrant violation of the civil rights act... 'At will' doesn't cover it legally.

    Basically, Diskeeper would have to get this case before the Supreme Court to change the law. They have admitted point blank they are in violation of the law.

    I'm surprised they ever agreed to work in such a crackpot place to begin with though. I would prefer to find a competitor and watch their sorry asses fail.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:Too bad... by Luke-Jr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now, where did you get the idea that the Supreme Court can change the law?

      --
      Luke-Jr
    2. Re:Too bad... by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Marbury v. Madison and Roe v. Wade, probably.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
  11. Discrminiation. Period. by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Diskeeper is not a country club. It's not some sort of fraternal organization of old men in funny hats.

    It is a COMPANY. It EMPLOYS People.

    Religious preferences, or training has nothing at all to do with the ability to program software. So it's not like some big hairy dude getting mad since the strip club won't let him on the pole.

    The laws are extraordinarily clear about this. You cannot base your decisions on whether to employ somebody, or to continue employing them based on religion. The 1st Amendment does not apply here. Last time I checked PEOPLE, NOT CORPORATIONS enjoyed constitutional protections such as the 1st Amendment.

    It's a novel argument, but it won't last 60 seconds in court.

  12. No, they're in violation of the law by the_skywise · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the EEOC's official position-

    http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359505

    A. Prohibited Conduct

    Religious harassment in violation of Title VII occurs when employees are: (1) required or coerced to abandon, alter, or adopt a religious practice as a condition of employment (this type of âoequid pro quoâ harassment may also give rise to a disparate treatment or denial of accommodation claim in some circumstances),[71] or (2) subjected to unwelcome statements or conduct that is based on religion and is so severe or pervasive that the individual being harassed reasonably finds the work environment to be hostile or abusive, and there is a basis for holding the employer liable.[72]
    1. Religious Coercion That Constitutes a Tangible Employment Action

    That's less than 2 minutes googling. But somehow I still think hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent figuring that out...

    1. Re:No, they're in violation of the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the EEOC's official position-

      http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359505

      A. Prohibited Conduct

      Religious harassment in violation of Title VII occurs when employees are: (1) required or coerced to abandon, alter, or adopt a religious practice as a condition of employment (this type of âoequid pro quoâ harassment may also give rise to a disparate treatment or denial of accommodation claim in some circumstances),[71] or (2) subjected to unwelcome statements or conduct that is based on religion and is so severe or pervasive that the individual being harassed reasonably finds the work environment to be hostile or abusive, and there is a basis for holding the employer liable.[72]
      1. Religious Coercion That Constitutes a Tangible Employment Action

      That's less than 2 minutes googling. But somehow I still think hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent figuring that out...

      When has prior law ever mattered to the Church of Scientology?

    2. Re:No, they're in violation of the law by laughingcoyote · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When has prior law ever mattered to the Church of Scientology?

      In this case, the Church of Scientology is not, to my knowledge, being sued. But Diskeeper is going to find out, like many companies have, that the law starts to matter to public corporations very quickly when equal opportunity violations happen.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    3. Re:No, they're in violation of the law by tikk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The EEOC is not relevant here, as the Complaint cites California state causes of action only (which keeps the case in state court as opposed to federal court). California's FEHA statute is similar to the EEOC, with the exception that FEHA permits unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, whereas EEOC damages are capped.

    4. Re:No, they're in violation of the law by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      Intersting... But doesn't the federal EEOC trump the state in this case? I wasn't aware that a corporation had to cross state lines before the EEOC became valid.

    5. Re:No, they're in violation of the law by tikk · · Score: 1

      Diskeeper has to comply with both laws, but it's up to the plaintiffs under which statute they wish to bring their suit. They could've even claimed that Diskeeper violated both FEHA and EEOC claims (or merely EEOC claims); but claiming violations under the EEOC would've permitted Diskeeper an opportunity to remove the case to Federal Court. There is no argument for removal to Federal Court where the only bring state claims.

    6. Re:No, they're in violation of the law by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      FEHA permits unlimited compensatory and punitive damages

      Woohoo! I'm getting a job there, and if the infringe on my Orthodox Satanist beliefs, I'll be asking for some of those "unlimited compensatory and punitive damages!"

    7. Re:No, they're in violation of the law by bogidu · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean how having a christian testimony in order to be employed by Focus on the Family or who knows how many other "christian" organizations require?

    8. Re:No, they're in violation of the law by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Diskeeper is not a PUBLIC corporation, it's a completely privately held company. You can see it on their website.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  13. Re:California is a at will state by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good to know, that means I won't have to hire Blacks, cripples or homosexuals either.
    Oh wait, that's not how it really works now is it?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  14. Dang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That dude has one creepy grin. *shudder*

  15. Scientology is the best troll religion ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If only the cult members could be let in on the joke!

    1. Re:Scientology is the best troll religion ever... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Lookup "Scientology Fair Game Law". Thats trolling to be envious of.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  16. If this bothers you.... by 8127972 · · Score: 5, Informative

    .... Wikipedia has a list of software that defragments disks. Take out Diskeeper and you have a bunch of options. Nothing changes behaviour like the loss of sales.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:If this bothers you.... by deniable · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested to know what MS pays them for the cut-down copy in Win2k, XP, and later.

    2. Re:If this bothers you.... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      and how come MS can't sit and code their own basic defragmenter even with stuff copied from OS X like small file auto defragmentation etc? HFS+ is not magic, it is just OS X is way more careful not to defrag the disk and do some auto defrag tricks as far as it doesn't danger the stability and performance of system.

      They coded NTFS (and its father, HPFS) for God's sake. It is their fs, they are the ones who knows its internals. It is absolutely stupid sounding really...

    3. Re:If this bothers you.... by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      You WANT them to have more not-invented-here syndrome?

    4. Re:If this bothers you.... by deniable · · Score: 1

      Well, they could embrace other peoples' technologies, extend them as needed and everybody will live happily ever after. :)

    5. Re:If this bothers you.... by Inda · · Score: 1

      And on that list is open source JkDefrag written by Jeroen Kessels.

      JkDefrag succeeded in defragmenting an old drive of mine in one shot. DiskKeeper was still going after the 8th attempt. Hence my hunt for better software.

      It's well worth jumping through Jeroen Kessels' spam filter hoop because Jeroen is a friendly man who seemed to appreciate me emailing my thanks.

      JkDefrag. JkDefrag. JkDefrag. Don't forget the name.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    6. Re:If this bothers you.... by dword · · Score: 1

      Nothing changes behaviour like the loss of sales.

      Let's just hope they won't change their behavior and join the other companies in the fight against piracy, which caused their sales to drop.

  17. diskeeper the company of nutters by zyrorl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Quite funny the results that come up when you search for l. ron hubbard and scientology on the diskeeper website http://www.diskeeper.com/Site-Search/SearchDestination.aspx?cx=002880524605280650330:dou154_yxny&cof=FORID%3A9;NB:1&ie=UTF-8&q=scientology&sa=Search and http://www.diskeeper.com/Site-Search/SearchDestination.aspx?cx=002880524605280650330:dou154_yxny&cof=FORID%3A9;NB:1&ie=UTF-8&q=hubbard&sa=Search Still i dont think he's advertising the religion enough with his software, surely it should have an "endorsed by church of scientology" banner etc. and maybe free coupons for their software if they convert or something.

    1. Re:diskeeper the company of nutters by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Out of curiosity, what did your links say at the time you posted them? The second one now comes up with nothing and the first gives only a brief reference to someone having been a member of the Church of Scientology since before starting the company.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    2. Re:diskeeper the company of nutters by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      For me the second one gives five results where they refer to Hubbard on various topics, one about a Hubbard Management System and one that refers to one Virgil Hubbard. Excerpts:

      something I learned from Mr. Hubbard and it's one of the keys to our success. - Diskeeper Corporation (a file called WallStreetTranscript.pdf)
      The concept of defining misunderstood words is more fully explained in The Basic Study Manual, by L. Ron Hubbard, Chapter Two: The Barriers to Study. - Fragmentation: The Condition, The Cause, The Cure
      The quote is from an essay entitled What is a Computer? by L. Ron Hubbard, which is included in full in Appendix A. - Fragmentation: Introduction


      Granted, the hubbard quote alluded to in the last one, "[A computer is] An electronic machine for making calculations, storing and analyzing information fed into it, and controlling machinery automatically", is one of the less subversive things that man has written.
      Actually, as appendix A states, he copied it from the Oxford American Dictionary. So... yeah. The appendix itself is rather tame, though; essentially Hubbard talks about how computers are awesome before drowning in his own particular brand of marketing bullshit-speak:
      "The datum here is that power is proportional to the speed of particle flow. This is the real secret behind the prosperity which can arise in connection with a computer operation."
      Of course, Ron. Of course.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  18. When referring to Scientology.... by Just+Another+Perl+Ha · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When referring to Scientology as a "church", please put quotes around the word "church".... because, well... it's not.

    Anyone who says otherwise is either stupid, or lying... and, if you disagree with this then you must be, by definition, complicit in their crimes.

    1. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When referring to Scientology as a "church", please put quotes around the word "church".... because, well... it's not.

      Just like those big "Christian" radio networks in the U.S.

    2. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Skye16 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Excuse me?

      They are the definition of a Church. I see next to no difference between them and the Roman Catholic Church. An organization who suckers people in with platitudes, encouraging them to open their pocketbooks on an ongoing basis, to benefit those at the top?

      For fuck's sake, the pope wears a gold god damned hat and sits on a gold fucking throne. I'm pretty sure that church sums up Scientology quite neatly. Just like every other church.

    3. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      i'm sure you have some axe to grind against the church, but to compare them to scientology is just misleading. for a start you can leave the roman catholic church without them comming after you, you don't HAVE to give money to keep attending the church either.

      no i'm not christain at all (pure atheist), but you aren't helping rid the world of scientology by comparing them to legit churches.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      When referring to Scientology as a "church", please put quotes around the word "church".... because, well... it's not.

      Is there a difference between the COS and American megachurches and the like? As far as I can tell, they're both in it for the money, they both pray on the hopes and fears of disadvantaged people, and they both play up superstitious nonsense.

    5. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by justinlee37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now you truly understand how agnostics and atheists feel about you.

    6. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Samah · · Score: 1

      ...they both pray on the hopes and fears of disadvantaged people...

      pray/prey
      A double entendre there? ;)

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    7. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      The difference is that Catholic Church hasn't been violent about it since the Inquisition.

    8. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would say, it's every bit as much a church as anything else, and every bit as much a religion as anything else. It's just that most churches in most religions aren't quite as directly evil.

      Anyone who says otherwise is either stupid, or lying... and, if you disagree with this then you must be, by definition, complicit in their crimes.

      Now that's a high-class troll! That sounds like something right out of Scientology's Fair Game doctrine!

      Look, I'm glad you're fighting the good fight and all, but that's just embarrassing.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    9. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by jdcope · · Score: 1

      I dunno, maybe you should ask all those kids they raped. Sounds pretty violent to me.

    10. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by jdcope · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I think he has a point. I lean toward Christian, but non-denominational. However, I believe the Catholic Church is a cult.

    11. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Legit" churches? Ho, ho, that was pretty funny. As if there is such a thing.

    12. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Luke_22 · · Score: 1

      Now you truly understand how agnostics feel about atheists, too.
      you can't really prove god(s) exist(s) and neither that it(he/she/they...) do not.
      so that is also how an agnostic sees an atheists, imho.

      --
      "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain
    13. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      Well...

      It's a bunch of people teaching things that aren't true as if they were.

      I can see a good connection with a lot of other churches...

      The major difference is that I can't get myself to believe LRH did think their teaching were true.

    14. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What "church" do you "belong" to then?

    15. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by citizenr · · Score: 1

      actually every sect can be called a church after it passes few million members mark

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    16. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by bky1701 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Agnostic" is what someone claims to be because they do not understand the term Atheist, or want to sound like they have some mystical idea that sets them apart. The only real difference between the two is that Agnostics try to leave the door open so they don't get hounded quite as much, which I really can't blame them for, but to think there is a difference... well, saying you are Agnostic is to Atheism as saying you MAY be Christian is Monotheism. All it shows is a failure you make up your mind, or a failure to understand what you are talking about.

      And for the record, the non-existence of something cannot be proven. It also does not ever need to be proven. The default state of everything in the universe is non-existent, and it takes proof to establish existence. God is not a special case; the burden of proof still lies upon the one asserting existence. Sure, you stand a chance of being wrong, but that's what being right is all about. If we had to prove non-existence, things get a little silly; for example, how can you prove that invisible purple monkeys DON'T steal socks from the laundry? You can't, because to do so would require you watch ALL laundry rooms 24 hours a day and 365 days a year for all eternity, starting from the beginning of time, and I don't want to hear you telling anyone they didn't really have their socks stolen by purple monkeys until you prove they don't exist. See how much nonsense it is to assume something starts in a state of "between"? Therefore, science (and logical reasoning in general), start at null. I am sorry if that breaks your world-view, but it breaks most people's.

    17. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Luke_22 · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia disagrees with you.
      agnosticism is not just about "not making up your mind".
      Please, do not confuse "non-existant" with "jet unkown". It may be right if you talk about knowledge, but you're wrong if we talk about phisical existance.
      Example: atoms were not known thousands of years ago, but the world kept togheter anyway. Guess why?
      So agnostics actually have "made up their mind", and they decided not to toss a coin to choose their religion.
      You can't be "right" or "wrong" on what the coin will give. You're either luky or not. It's different.
      Btw, it is provable that something does _not_exist, since phisics is also math... like, it's easy to prove that you can't have perpetual motion, and even get energy from it, right?

      I am sorry if that breaks your world-view, but it breaks most people's.

      --
      "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain
    18. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by he-sk · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't know what you're talking about.

      Here's a clue: There can be agnostic atheists and gnostic atheits. Just as there can be agnostic theists and gnostic theists. The two concepts:

      * believing/disbelieving the existence of God and
      * believing that the existance of God can/cannot be known or proven

      are orthogonal, even if they are philosophically related.

      As an aside, "agnostics" who feel the need to bash atheists are just as tiring as atheists who bash religious people or religious people who bash everybody else. Which isn't all surprising, because the need to put other people down is a character trait and not dependent on any belief system.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    19. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Courageous · · Score: 1

      Most agnostics don't really following the Huxleyen definitions; mostly they follow the OP's working definition... "don't believe, don't want an argument"... as opposed to the atheist "don't believe, that belief is too intellectually silly to ever consider".

      C//

    20. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Rottweillers and chihuahuas are both dogs, but I know which one I'd rather got its teeth into me. I think that's the point that's being made.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    21. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by he-sk · · Score: 1

      That wasn't the OP's working definition at all. He implied that atheists are part of a church and are complicit in atheism's crimes -- whatever they are. That's a funny way of saying that he doesn't want an argument.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    22. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      You're 100% correct. I am agnostic as well.

    23. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by justinlee37 · · Score: 0

      What? Dude, no FUCK YOU. I would never be an atheist. I didn't leave the door open so I wouldn't be "hounded." What fucking bullshit. I left it open because claiming to know the origin of the universe is for irrational idiots with no fucking common sense. Atheists believe that there could be no higher power. Agnostics hold the RATIONAL position in believing that they could never know the answer to that. Unanswerable questions are stupid and have nothing to do with science. Thinking you know the answer to an unanswerable question is more mystical than being an agnostic. I'm sorry, but FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU. Agnosticism is like a faith to me and for you to belittle it in this way really betrays your fucking ignorance.

      We don't have to prove non-existence you fucking moron. The WHOLE POINT OF AGNOSTICISM is ADMITTING THAT YOU CAN'T PROVE NON-EXISTENCE. Agnostics don't try to set out to prove the non-existence of anything, they ADMIT IGNORANCE and MOVE ON. Why can't you do that, you fucking idiot?

      Atheists are the fucking retards who think you can prove non-existence, not agnostics. So get your fucking head on straight you fucking bastard.

    24. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      and I don't want to hear you telling anyone they didn't really have their socks stolen by purple monkeys until you prove they don't exist.

      That is possible, but highly unlikely. WHICH IS EXACTLY THE OPINION THAT AN AGNOSTIC WOULD HAVE ABOUT ANY RELIGIOUS THEORY. Fucking dumbass.

    25. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Admitting that you can't PROVE the non-existence of some mystical theory does not mean that you have to suddenly be paralyzed with indecision at every turn in life. There is no fucking reason to bother trying to disprove something like purple sock-stealing monkeys when there's no evidence that it happens OR that it doesn't happen. It's a fucking stupid question to begin with. We CAN'T KNOW what is beyond the scope of our perception. I can make an educated guess that purple sock-stealing monkeys don't exist, just like I can make an educated guess that God doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean it's impossible and only a fucking failure of a scientist would declare that something is "impossible" if he lacks evidence supporting either case.

    26. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by ckedge · · Score: 1

      Fuck you. Atheists are people who would be Agnostic, if only they were a bit more logical. Atheists don't know SHIT about pure logic or the scientific method, that's why they are Atheists.

      > See how much nonsense it is to assume something starts in a state of "between"?

      Starts? How about *exists* in a state of between? Like... oh I don't know, some kind of cat in a box. That'd be crazy shit, huh?

    27. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Which Catholic church is that then? The term Catholic has a rich and varied meaning in Christianity, and by itself does not define very much. For example the Russian Orthodox church considers itself a Catholic church. Even the Church of England considers itself to be a Catholic church.

      I suspect that you mean Roman Catholic, but if that is what you mean you need to explicitly state it, because the vast majority of Christian church's consider themselves to be Catholic.

    28. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Courageous · · Score: 1

      This is very strange; there was some reparenting going on in the thread that showed yours as direct response to one that I cannot find now. Weird.

      Somewhere in the thread a poster describes agnostics as (paraphrased) unbelievers who phrase their belief in such a way as to avoid argument. This is the correct definition, because it actually fits the profile of your average agnostic.

      Now *technically*, agnosticism can be something else, such as the classical Huxleyan or what not, but basically no one outside of academic/philosophical circles cares a wit about that.

      I don't care very much for agnosticism, because it's either cowardly (weasel wording: the agnostic *behaves* in every way as if god does not exist, simply will not say so) or apologetic (saying that one believes in god, but cannot prove or disprove the idea).

      Obviously, you will detect that I am an atheist: I do not believe in god, and find the idea silly.

      C//

    29. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you can't prove anything, really. Therefore, we should be agnostic about everything? That's technically correct. However, in real life, one must take a practical stance to decide one's actions and ideas, which would be that God doesn't exist or does exist.

      Can you prove that there is no

    30. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      There are any number of possible explanations for the universe. And it's not just "God." There are hundreds of different religions and they're all as equally unlikely as the next. I hate the "it's God or no God" attitude because that's the sort of bullshit that makes Pascal's wager sound as though it makes sense when it really doesn't. It ignores all the other possibilities. The infinite possibilities. So yeah, one must take a practical stance ... just dealing with the world as we perceive it. But to call oneself "atheist" is to commit to something just like a theist might.

    31. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by he-sk · · Score: 1

      Did you mean this post? http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1069475&cid=26190291

      I could have sworn that it was an answer to Luke_22 post.

      Anyway, I wouldn't be so hard on agnostics, because if they honestly have a "Don't know, don't care" attitude, more power to them.

      But then there are those who constantly have to elevate themselves above both religious and non-religious people as if they are somehow especially enlightened because of their beliefs. My theory is that they are all closet atheists anyway and some form of Pascal's wager is holding them back. They know its logical flaws but on some level still fear that they made the wrong choice.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    32. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Courageous · · Score: 1

      Nope; wasn't that post. Strange. I have reparent highly scored posts turned on, I guess it screwed up something somehow.

      Anyway, I'm with you on your psychoanalysis, although I would go a step further:

      Some people have difficulty comprehending that there is no functional difference between actively believing that there is no god and not being persuaded. In each case, you basically behave the same, but some folks insist on drawing a semantic line that produces no discernible difference in behaviors. Is what it is.

      C//

      C//

    33. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      You seem to assume that something not being a fact equates it with being an impossibility. This is untrue. It's perfectly reasonable to assume anything is untrue, and only a failure of a scientist would assume otherwise without good proof. Therefore, I again say that the difference between the 2 is one of failure to understand the implications of being an Atheist.

    34. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by he-sk · · Score: 1

      Well, the behavior might be the same, but the motivations behind the behavior are different nonetheless. And since we're talking about belief systems that seems to me to be a relevant distinction.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    35. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      And none of these should be confused with gnostics.

    36. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      "Agnostic" is what someone claims to be because they do not understand the term Atheist, or want to sound like they have some mystical idea that sets them apart.

      Once upon a time "atheist" meant someone who merely disbelieved that god(s) exist (or are worthy of worship - but I'll leave that out for simplicity's sake). Then there was a power struggle between the rising secularists and church(es), and consequently the term evolved (semi-purposefully, ironically enough) to mean someone who asserts that god(s) do not exist, rather than simply not believing that they do. This is why there is a tendency to classify the latter people as "agnostics" nowadays, despite the historic meaning of that term being someone who claims that it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of a deity.

      TL;DR: There's lots of trolls calling themselves atheists, so most non-trolls don't want to, since they're thought to be one of those trolls if they do.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    37. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by seebs · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's just as much a church or religion as anything else. Do some research; they explicitly stated that they were not a religion in any way, until they ran into tax problems. Hubbard was on the record as saying that the religion angle was just a cover story.

      I'm not saying they're "not a religion" because of the slavery, torture, or other things; religions have done those. I'm saying they're "not a religion" because the people running it went out of their way to make it clear that they weren't, until they discovered that they needed a cover story to avoid being shut down for, as an example, making false medical claims.

      There's no evidence that any of the people running this believe any of the stuff. So far as anyone can tell, they're in it for the money.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    38. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I'm saying they're "not a religion" because the people running it went out of their way to make it clear that they weren't...

      True, it's difficult to find evidence of Christianity denying being a religion -- though Zen and Buddhism seem to.

      I think that's more a technicality than anything, though -- it's not as if other religions weren't abusing the very concept of a religion as a form of protection for... whatever it was they needed.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    39. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      However, in real life, one must take a practical stance to decide one's actions and ideas, which would be that God doesn't exist or does exist.

      Or both or neither. Could be "exists but not as we think", "did exist but doesn't anymore", "something like that exists but it's not God" or any number of variations.

      In the end agnostics decide that the question can't (currently|ever) be meaningfully answered, so they don't attempt to and ignore the whole thing. Some even argue that the question itself does not make sense. The question does not need to be answered; humans don't operate with binary logic and one can live their live in a way that never relies on an answer to that question... And, of course, if you do not accept the question as meaningful you simply cannot answer it as "does God exist" equals to "does X exist for an undefined X".

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    40. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I actually do distinguish between "does (a) god exist" and "can we tell whether (a) god exists", as well as "is it possible to tell whether (a) god exists". The second I would answer with a "no" as the time, although of course if suddenly a 3x3x0.1 km stone tablet saying "I'M BACK - JHWH" appeared in downtown New York that might be a counter-argument -- so the third I would answer with "direct interaction from the side of the god in question might make a likely answer possible". As for the first, it is technically invalidated by the second as it's impossible to answer without any data, but I tend to be skeptic so I go with "it's unlikely".

      Now one could argue that I might as well go with "no" -- it certainly would not be much of a change. For this particular question the difference between my stance and that of an theist is mostly semantic: They ignore (let's apply this to Christianism since that should be familiar ground to most users) God because they assume he doesn't exist. I ignore him because it's less work but I acknowledge that I may very well be wrong in doing so (just as likely as I'm right, probably).

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    41. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're suggesting that the entire Rehnquist Court in Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos 483 U.S. 327 (1987) is considered stupid or lying by every agnostic or atheist? Aren't there some atheists/agnostics on that Court? Would those consider themselves stupid? And that the High Court is complicit in the crimes of the Mormon church? Bring out your resume; I'd like to compare them with that court, and we can see who's stupid.

    42. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Courageous · · Score: 1

      It's easy: the idea of the Bible God is both preposterous AND evil. The God described in the Bible seems deranged to me, an apparent and obvious invention of men with domineering minds, projecting their twisted values onto a make-believe creator entity. Supposing, somehow, that I'm wrong about the fiction of it, it's still easy: such an entity is unworthy of worship, veneration, consideration, value of any kind.

      As for the idea that there exists some OTHER creator whatzit, that's less readily dismissed by derision, however it can be dismissed as having no utility. For all we know, it could be some incredibly advanced alien power that didn't like the physics of the last universe particularly well, cares not at all for worship, and there's no afterlife anyway. See what I mean?

      C//

    43. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Hence I don't live my life according to any religious tenets (besides generally-good stuff like "killing is usually bad"). As I said, the distinction is mostly semantic. I say "might be" wherever you say "no" but act mostly the same.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    44. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, maybe you should ask all those kids they raped. Sounds pretty violent to me.

      I know you are being assine, but... The difference is that the Inquisition was official policy of the Roman Catholic Church (which incidently is also the case with most of the abuses of the COS). In contrast, recent child abuse scandal was the result of criminal, and acknowledge as sinful and wrong by the Catholic Church's doctrine, acts by specific individuals who were part of the Catholic Church.

    45. Re:When referring to Scientology.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do believe you meant to say, "Someone who edited the page on Wikipedia disagrees with you."

      Or in fact, http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html this website, since it is the "source" of the "definition" the editors of wikipedia are using.

      Robert T. Carrol is cited as the source of the link above, and as such the quote from wikipedia "It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism."

      but then you could always throw this in there "Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people, using 'agnostic' in the sense of 'noncommittal'."

      Btw, it is provable that something does _not_exist, since phisics is also math... like, it's easy to prove that you can't have perpetual motion, and even get energy from it, right?

      Ok:
      Exhibit A:
      Material proof of the existence of a 6th finger on my right hand = false.
      A 6th finger on my right hand does not exist.
      Math does not lie.

      Exhibit B:
      Material proof of the existence of a god = false.
      A god does not exist.
      Math does not lie.

  19. Ad I got... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one that finds it funny that the Ad it got with this page was a flash ad for the "Scientology Video Channel"?

    1. Re:Ad I got... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Yes, I got the ad as well for Scientology.org.

      Quite hilarious. And yet another assurance that I won't be purchasing any membership or subscription to this site any time soon.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Ad I got... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Scientology has massive amount of adwords etc. bought. I'd point finger to the advertising provider and the youtube channel provider. That is why people got real anxious about a web advertising monopoly at first place.

      I remember it happened once more on a completely real science related story. I guess one of words triggered their ads.

    3. Re:Ad I got... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I should note it's just my general rejection of anything scientology-related. I just hate the mere mention of the cult in any form.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Ad I got... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think slashdot has more than one reason to dislike the cos...

      However, I would think that SourceForge, Inc could disable certain advertisements from appearing on their site.

      Perhaps we can just chalk this one up to everyone being on vacation.

    5. Re:Ad I got... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      -- Insert witty question feigning ignorance of the existence of ads on Slashdot, in a not-very-subtle reference to Adblock Plus, here --

  20. I think this is true.... by FooGoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    A friend of mine use to work there an always complained to me about the internal scientology efforts. He eventually left the company because they where driving him nuts.

    --
    People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
  21. no need to defrag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get a SSD and you dont need to defrag... but then again if you are using ext3, fragmentation isnt a problem.

  22. Redundancy in TFS by 6Yankee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Diskeeper founder and CEO Craig Jensen is a high levelI, publicly avowed Scientologist who has given millions to his Church ...but we're repeating ourselves...

    1. Re:Redundancy in TFS by jonsjava · · Score: 1

      the CEO isn't Craig Jensen. he's Chairman. Lisa Terrenzi is CEO. I sent her a message telling her that I would be taking my business elsewhere just a minute ago.

    2. Re:Redundancy in TFS by NonSequor · · Score: 2, Funny

      the CEO isn't Craig Jensen. he's Chairman. Lisa Terrenzi is CEO. I sent her a message telling her that I would be taking my business elsewhere just a minute ago.

      So did I.

      I hope she doesn't figure out that I don't do any business with her company.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    3. Re:Redundancy in TFS by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I sent her a message telling her that I would be taking my business elsewhere just a minute ago.

      Careful. You wouldn't want to be declared Fair Game, now would you ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  23. Missing the Point by hax0r_this · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Diskkeeper's contention seems to rely on the First Amendment to the Constitution, which is a higher law than the one you cite. It doesn't matter what state or federal law says if that law violates the employer's constitutional rights.

    Now whether the employer actually has a constitutional right to force his employees to take Scientology classes is up for debate, but you can't win that debate by citing any number of lower laws.

    1. Re:Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, but the Constitution applies to the PEOPLE of America, NOT corporations.

    2. Re:Missing the Point by the_skywise · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True... but the laws of the EEOC stem from the Constitutions intentions and other amendments. It's sister legislation to prevent discrimination in housing has already been well argued.

      Notice the EEOC here doesn't restrict an employer from having a religious bias or even proselytizing to the employee. The line is whether or not the employee's work atmosphere and/or promotions are hindered by rejecting the proselytization or not being of the same religious type.

      MANDATORY training like being done here is certainly outside the realm of the EEOC's rulings here and certainly against the intention of the Constitution.

      To wit- I'm all for religious freedom even to the point of an employer having a strong religious philosophy. There's nothing wrong with that. If these guys were complaining because the guy talked about Scientology to them all day. I'd say, tough. But while they're a company of Scientologists, they're not a Scientology company... and so a religious test breaks every tenant of the EEOC AND the Constitution.

      Otherwise, the EEOC is meaningless.

    3. Re:Missing the Point by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      That will likely be the subject of the trial.

    4. Re:Missing the Point by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      "Diskkeeper's contention seems to rely on the First Amendment to the Constitution"

      The 1st Amendment applies to federal and local governments, not private businesses. In this case, Title VII applies rather than the Constitution.

    5. Re:Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wouldn't my right start where they try to force something upon me? The way I see it, you are violating my rights. I think DK is about to get their arse handed to them.

    6. Re:Missing the Point by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      You should really take the whole "corporations are people" thing to its conclusion: There are no differences between corporations and regular citizens, period. Corporations get a voting right (one vote per corporation), can apply for unemployment benefits when they have no customers (up to the maximum rate for one person and only after they've liquidated their assets) and are punished like a regular person - that means imprisonment and in some states capital punishment are possible.

      Hey, the jail industry will like it and it certainly would be interesting to see, say, every single employee of Microsoft getting locked up for several months.

      "But my corporation is supposed to shield me from legal repercussions!" - "That's why we're locking up all employees and not just the executives."



      Jury service would be interesting, though. Just imagine fitting a huge megacorp with tens of thousands of employees into the jury booth.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    7. Re:Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your statement were true, then the states and municipalities would have no ability to restrict the right to keep and bear arms and courts would have no right to silence you in any venue. I don't disagree with the basis of your assertion. I just don't believe it's as simple as you state.

    8. Re:Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diskkeeper's contention seems to rely on the First Amendment to the Constitution, which is a higher law than the one you cite. It doesn't matter what state or federal law says if that law violates the employer's constitutional rights.

      Now whether the employer actually has a constitutional right to force his employees to take Scientology classes is up for debate, but you can't win that debate by citing any number of lower laws.

      Show me where, in the Constitution, free speech rights are granted to anything besides a person? It doesn't... which means the alleged law or court ruling that grants a business the status of a person in the first place is NOT part of the constitution itself-- placing it in the same arena as the law which was cited above.
      Or to put it another way, since the Constitution does not specifically grant corporations person-hood, it would not be a Constitutional issue but a matter of employment & corporate law.. the only Constitutional portion would be the rights of the workers to adhere to their own religious beliefs.

    9. Re:Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The First Amendment argument is a red herring. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to make me listen to you. It only gives you the right to express yourself. In this case, the company was not denied the opportunity to express themselves. Employees simply chose not to listen. The act of firing the employees for not listening is separate from that expression and does not fall under the protections of the First Amendment. If we extend First Amendment in such a manner, anyone could do as they please and just say "First Amendment" when the police arrive.

    10. Re:Missing the Point by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Now whether the employer actually has a constitutional right to force his employees to take Scientology classes is up for debate, but you can't win that debate by citing any number of lower laws.

      It depends, actually. I know in my home state (of Utah, no less), there have been judgements passed down that "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" do not apply in the workplace. (This covers both political and religious speech, by the way).

      There are limits to constitutionally "guaranteed" rights. Yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't protected as freedom of speech, nor is slander or libel. The freedom of the press doesn't mean the press has a universal right to hide a source from the courts in all circumstances.

      Similarly freedom of religion doesn't mean you can violate laws (federal or state) to practice your religion - for example, Mormons abandoned polygamy because the law trumped their religious beliefs. (Of course, there is a small splinter group who disagree -- and they are currently being prosecuted in Utah, Texas, and Arizona.)

      There is no doubt in my mind that there are limits to the "constitutionally protected" freedom of religion.

      In Utah, at least, you don't have the freedom to preach or evangelize religion (or political views) in the workplace. This is because a company's employees comprise a "captive audience" who aren't free to leave or otherwise avoid a person who is pushing their own agenda on a captive audience, which then creates a hostile work environment. It's not even legal to have a religious (or anti-religious, political, philisophical, etc.) text in view of others in a public workspace.

      In my mind, it's a good thing; an employee shouldn't be forced to endure the preaching of a religious, philisophical, or political point of view. An employee is there to do trade their labor and skills for money, not become a diciple.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    11. Re:Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because locking up 80,000 employees who have wives, kids, families, etc. is just a fantastic move. I seriously hope you were being facetious or trying to make a point.

      I'll have you know that a good chunk of the "minions" of the collective are great, honest, people who so happen to work for a few assholes here and there.

      In short, they're not really unlike any other company.

  24. Have you seen Craig Jensen???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.craigjensen.com/ I was curious about who the Craig Jensen character was...are those is natural teeth????????? I'd be scared to work for him just because of those choppers...maybe they're so white is because he has gotten rid of all the Thetans in his teeth??? I'm posting Anonymously for Anonymous!:-)

    1. Re:Have you seen Craig Jensen???? by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, anybody who makes a website just to point out in big bold letters "I AM A HUMANITARIAN" is probably overcompensating for something really evil...

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Have you seen Craig Jensen???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... like being a Scifag?

      someone had to say it. good thing someone is here!

  25. Another Reason to Avoid Windows by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1, Troll

    At least with Linux I can opt for ext3 and other formats to avoid the link with Hans Reiser.

    But this link to Scientology is just another reason to avoid Windows. At least in my opinion.

    1. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "link" (however security-audited and tested) that was entirely removed for Server 2008/Vista? Really?

      Christ, freetard. Get a grip.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    2. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by MrLint · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While working at a place may have you end up with forced Scientology indoctrination, I really don't think a file system is going to make you kill your wife.

      Of course if avoiding the taint of Hans Reiser is how you choose a file system, perhaps you've never left the basement ;)

    3. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, Troll = He was right, but included the word freetard in his post, so let's get back at him for being correct! Looks like the mods are on crack again.

    4. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course if avoiding the taint of Hans Reiser is how you choose a file system, perhaps you've never left the basement ;)

      Good for you.
      It's a bold statement to admit to voluntarily seeking out another man's taint to choose a filesystem.
      Me? I'm old-fashioned. I spread my cheeks and lift my sac.

    5. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by eltaco · · Score: 4, Funny

      have you checked the code for OCA personality tests?

      --
      It's not about fate, it's about character.
      there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
    6. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by deniable · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, I can see it now: KB111666: Thetans cause random restarts.

    7. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by Guspaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is there any evidence that they rewrote the defrag engine rather than just the UI? I vaguely recall hearing that Vista's defrag tool was just a new UI on the same core.

    8. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While working at a place may have you end up with forced Scientology indoctrination, I really don't think a file system is going to make you kill your wife.

      However, I'd say that a program with a root-level access to the disk made by a Scientologist is a risky thing to have on your computer. While the CoS has officially abandoned their Fair Game doctrine, I would not go so far as to assume it is completely abandoned in practice. Maybe I'm paranoid, but techincally, the moment you oppose them, your data may be theirs. It's not like we can inspect the source.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    9. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The server reboots spontaneously when the manager walks past it. Solution: Declare the manager a Suppressive Person and fire him.

    10. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm aware, it's an entirely new defrag engine. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    11. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by Draek · · Score: 1

      Your post is the textual equivalent of the Goatse man, and I shall now bleach my brain to remove the mental image produced from it. Thanks a lot, you bastard.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    12. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by neomunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ahem... If I were to walk into, say, a predominately black church, stand at the pulpit and say "Water is wet, niggers!" my 'correctness' would not even slightly dampen the raw power of trollishness that I have just unleashed.

      When are you insecure nerds (I'm a secure nerd, myself) going to learn that being smart and being a douchbag don't go hand in hand, nor does being right excuse unnecessarily rude behavior. People like to joke that nerds can't get girls, but it's just not true. Nerds can get girls, but nerds who've never bothered to spend even an ounce of thought about social graces don't get along with much of ANYBODY (especially girls), except similar people who are willing to overlook your social ineptitudes out of sheer loneliness.

      BTW, this applies to that "I'm going to be so helpful and easy to push over she'll HAVE to love me" train of thought too, which is a thought that most people would easily see the flaw in, if they bothered to spend the effort thinking about it.

      In short, anyone who can successfully manage memory in C should EASILY be able to discern at least basic social rules and strategies. Slinging terms like 'freetard' because someone is misinformed about a recent development in some obscure topic is 10x the fail of getting the fact wrong in the first place.

      I don't know how it is around your family and friends, but in THIS place, you're not the brightest bulb in the box, there are many bright bulbs here. Random insults at strangers on the internet don't make you look cool, or too smart for the rest of us, or 'leet' or whatever you're going for, it makes you look immature. The GP was troll, flamebait and informative all in one, but I would argue that it's more of the first one than it is the last.

    13. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know what the fun thing is? I agree with you.

      I did not call NeverVotedBush a freetard because he was "uninformed." I called him a freetard because he is very much exemplifying the knee-jerk, "MUST TIE EVERYTHING INTO WHY WINDOWS SUCKS" attitude that pervades a very large part of Slashdot. The groupthink that anything even peripherally related to Windows or Microsoft, whether or not it still applies, is--well, more or less precisely that: the act of a freetard. It's a behavior pattern, not simply a pejorative.

      And for what it's worth, I agree with you regarding insecure nerds. My fiancee might suggest that it doesn't quite apply to me, though. ;-) Or, at least, not IRL, and I don't consider being pointed and aggressive online to be a mark of security or insecurity. I have no real issue with being as pointed as the situation warrants--and given that the person I replied to is more or less a troll himself, "very pointed" was the order of the day. You'll notice that in speaking to you, to another poster who writes with a degree of eloquence and intelligence, I'm making a concerted effort to be respectful and explain my position. "NeverVotedBush" does not rate that, and so I did not do so. :-)

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    14. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      The changes definitely are not just the UI. It does some smarter stuff, like not defragging a file if the fragments are bigger than 64 mb.

      If you have 2 64mb fragments its going to take a lot of reads and writes to join them up, for very little benefit. Not bothering with fragments like this means defragging is a LOT quicker

    15. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by Mozk · · Score: 1

      You know what the fun thing is? I agree with you.

      What? That's not very fun! I find disagreements much more fun, especially when they turn violent.

      To get it started: vi sucks.

      Good day.

      --
      No existe.
    16. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems to be that falsely claiming you are officially abandoning your Fair Game doctrine would be perfectly fine under the Fair Game doctrine.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    17. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      It seems to be that falsely claiming you are officially abandoning your Fair Game doctrine would be perfectly fine under the Fair Game doctrine.

      Now that is a chilling thought. Especially since it's true.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    18. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      But I'd agree with that. :(

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    19. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is the textual equivalent of the Goatse man, and I shall now bleach my brain to remove the mental image produced from it. Thanks a lot, you bastard.

      This should fix that for you.

    20. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by nstlgc · · Score: 1
      I would go as far as to say that the policy itself has not been cancelled, just the use of the term 'Fair Game' because of, as outlined in the cancellation letter, "bad PR" (HCO Policy Letter of 21 October 1968). Quote:

      The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.

      --
      I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
    21. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cult has abandoned the use of the TERM "Fair Game" --- not the practice.

    22. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by neomunk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're fine, I was talking to the AC who was bitching about your moderation. I act the same way you do, though perhaps less often. Look back far enough in my post history, and you'll find some flame and some pure troll. I just smile at the moderations when they come. If fact, one of my Very Minor Goals in life is to be honestly rated either +5 Troll or +5 Flamebait on slashdot some day in my life.

    23. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Ah. Thank you for the clarification.

      Nowadays, I guess they just hear a voice booming "Finish him!!!" and everyone knows what has to be done.
      Either that, or Code Red.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    24. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      I had a +4 Troll once.

      Then someone Flamebaited it. :(

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    25. Re:Another Reason to Avoid Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least with Linux I can opt for ext3 and other formats to avoid the link with Hans Reiser.

      But this link to Scientology is just another reason to avoid Windows. At least in my opinion.

      There are lots of reasons to like Linux. This isn't one of them.

  26. "Discrimination" is legal by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

    Under the Bill of Rights, specifically Amendments I and V, "discrimination" is perfectly legal. People have the right to peaceably assemble with whom they choose, and cannot be deprived of their property without due process, or have their property taken for public use without just compensation.

    Anything that says otherwise is unconstitutional.

  27. Scientology ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why is there an ad link to an official Scientology site sitting under the text of the main post? Slashdot, you're not flirting with Scientology at the annual Christmas indoctrination, er, I mean party, are you?

    1. Re:Scientology ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  28. Ugh by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

    I wonder if CoS thinks they're above the law... oh, wait, I have excessive reason to already believe that they're unequivocally beyond redemption as human beings.

    Scientology is a perfect, absolutely stunning program to systematically turn anyone into a depraved monster or one of the many slaves they suck the life from, from Lincoln to Cleveland, from family to the smallest part of the mind that makes a person a person.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    1. Re:Ugh by Aphoxema · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, God, the irony, Google Ads gave me a 'What is Scientology?' video from scientology.org.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    2. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not irony. It's more like el-ron-y.

    3. Re:Ugh by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's too good...

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  29. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a big truck.

  30. diskeeper is confused... by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they are confusing their right to free speech as the right to force people to listen - sure they can hold all the scientology sessions they want, but employee's shouldn't be forced to go and it shouldn't be allowed to impact on their jobs.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  31. This is how you take down Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By exposing the businesses that use their so called training courses, is how to take them down. You hurt them in the pocket book because who will want to buy from these fanatics, or use their services, or even work for them? I won't purchase anything from them, and I hope no one else does either. If you're bosses are buying in to this crap, then just expose them "Anonymously," and see how long they stay in business.

  32. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by IvyKing · · Score: 4, Informative

    Last time I checked PEOPLE, NOT CORPORATIONS enjoyed constitutional protections such as the 1st Amendment.

    Hate to burst your bubble, but there have been several court decisions stating the corporations do indeed have freedom of speech protections granted by the first amendment. This is because corporations are considered to be legal "persons". Don't think this will help Diskeeper.

  33. Diskeeper users should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    look always at their EULA on each upgrade, just in case they were auto-adhering to a new obscure religion and agreeing to give them all their possessions..

  34. Diskeeper spam by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    I get tons of Diskeeper spam and always assumed that it must be a scam. Does anybody actually buy their shit?

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Diskeeper spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you, assuming you bought windows. diskeeper lite is bundled with win2k & later as defrag in programs->accessories.

    2. Re:Diskeeper spam by Jimmy+King · · Score: 2, Informative

      On top of being the developers of all but the newest defrag that comes with Windows, the Diskeeper branded version of Diskeeper light came pre-installed on my Thinkpad T60.

    3. Re:Diskeeper spam by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

      As I re-read that, after previewing and accepting it even, I want to clarify my above post before the pedantic folks around here tear it apart for not being 100% dead on accurate. I meant "newer" versions of Windows.

  35. Weak defense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, practicing and encouraging workplace religion might fall under that defense, but making it a requirement for employment is discrimination. If you aren't working in a church, it won't fly.

  36. I believe the phrase is... by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    "Diplomatic Immunity"

    (see Lethal Weapon 2)

  37. Tagged "isitaprilfools" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tagged "isitaprilfools"

  38. Re:Freedoms of religion and association by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    "The freedoms of religion and association are two of our most important freedoms"

    This is exactly why this is so heinous. Employees of this company are being compelled to go through this training as a condition of employment. There is no freedom of religion or association here.

    There is no difference between this and an employee's supervisor tell him or her that they will lose their job if they don't provide sexual favors in exchange for continued employment.

  39. Re:California is a at will state by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Who begs to protect children more than a closet pedophile? Perhaps a convicted one. The point is those who preach frequently have something to hide.

    In order for your example to make any sense, it presumes that able straight white people ROCK, and everyone else sucks or else why do they need legal protection? Oh right, because of all the racists...

    The fact is you are projecting your own superior feelings if you really believe the world is so full of prejudice.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
  40. How ironic it would be by Jeian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How ironic it would be if the guy who attributes his success to Scientology, kills his company's sales through forcing it to be taught to his employees. ;p

    1. Re:How ironic it would be by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, please. Slashdot activists are going to kill DiskKeeper's product. Just like they killed Microsoft. Right.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    2. Re:How ironic it would be by nicklott · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only a very tiny percentage of Microsoft's customers read this site. I'd wager that a significantly larger percentage of diskeeper's do.

    3. Re:How ironic it would be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While Slashdot isn't the one killing MS, they are in fact dying. Just like the automakers they will have a hard time keeping afloat during the recession; the good times have made them fat and sloppy, I doubt they can adjust in time to avoid seeing their cash reserves being eaten up.

    4. Re:How ironic it would be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The irony of Scientology is:

      All scientologists are "audited". This involves confessing to another scientlologist ( higher order ) about stuff you wouldn't tell your mother - crimes and sexual stuff that you wouldn't want anyone to know. Everything that is said during the "audit" is written down ( and often recorded ). It is all stored in big archives.

      It is this makes scientlogists so fanatically protective of their own little cult.

      Eventually ( nerds understand this ), there will be leaks, and lots of sensitive information on scientologists will come out: "The Christmas of Anonomous"

      This is what they fear. This is what drives them.

      It has nothing to do with space-aliens.

      Funny isn't it:-)

  41. Re:Freedoms of religion and association by upuv · · Score: 1

    The primary issue is that they were employed and later fired for their religious beliefs. It would be morally different if during the employment / interview process that this significant fact regarding employment were put on the table. From what I read here and in the referenced material it was not. This is a clear deception. As a deception it is morally corrupt, unlawful and does not reflect the teachings of any upstanding religion I am aware of.

  42. Re:Freedoms of religion and association by upuv · · Score: 1

    And yes I am a victim of a troll Post.

  43. These guys need to be defregmented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The faster the better...

  44. Craig Jensen is head of W.I.S.E by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Evidently the owner, Craig Jensen is the head of W.I.S.E. (World Institute for Scientology Enterprises).
    http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/former-cio-sues-diskeeper-claims-he-fired-not-participating-scientology-tr-34213/#post657781
     

    Later as a "public scientologist" I was in the founding "CEO's Circle" of WISE, the top membership level, and met with and worked closely with Jensen who runs Diskeeper (then "Executive Software"). One of our top purposes was to drive people into WISE and through WISE into organized scientology.

    http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/former-cio-sues-diskeeper-claims-he-fired-not-participating-scientology-tr-34213/#post657846

  45. Been There, Forced To Do That by no1home · · Score: 5, Interesting

    About two years after high school, I started working for a local office supply business as a low-level manager. The owners, all of the upper staff, and most everyone else were Scientologists. They never SAID anything about the training manuals being Scientology, but that is exactly what they were, and, of course, we were forced to study them and pass the tests. They never actively tried to recruit me or make me go to one of their churches/meetings/whatever (though it was mentioned politely a couple times) and didn't discuss it too much, but the manuals were enough to make it clear: Scientology was the way to move up in the company. I played the game for a while and did well there while managing to not become brain-washed, but, eventually, I had to bail. I'm a patient, easy going guy, but I could only take so much of their pseudo-scientific, pseudo-psychological, pseudo-religious cult junk before blowing a fuse.

    What I want to know is, if Scientology was the key to success, why then did the business fail? That company no longer exists. :)

    --
    I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!

    Persecutors will be violated!
    1. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by Intrinsic · · Score: 1, Troll

      Im not a Scientologist, but Id be careful about labeling things Pseudo. If something works for you, and you cant explain it, it doesnt make it less of a reality then what we cal science in todays age, newage or not..

    2. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      It's pseudo- all that. Even religion, given it was founded by a Sci-Fi writer aiming to create a popular religion.

      And you're a moron for thinking otherwise. Science is science, no matter how much shit and religion you throw at it.

      If something works for you, it might just be placebo effect - or it might be completely unrelated to whatever you're doing. Rain won't come by dancing.

      Science is confirmed by repeatable experiments and for any hypothesis to be science there also has to be a way to disprove it. And even then it isn't proof, it's merely a coherent theory.

    3. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      Countdown until Intrinsic starts talking about "quantum mechanics" and "The Secret"...

    4. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by Intrinsic · · Score: 1

      Naa, "the secret" is kind of weak... I would go with Eckhart Tolles "The Power of Now" or "The Divine Matrix" or "The Biology of belief"

    5. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About two years after high school, I started working for a local office supply business as a low-level manager. The owners, all of the upper staff, and most everyone else were Scientologists. They never SAID anything about the training manuals being Scientology, but that is exactly what they were, and, of course, we were forced to study them and pass the tests. They never actively tried to recruit me or make me go to one of their churches/meetings/whatever (though it was mentioned politely a couple times) and didn't discuss it too much, but the manuals were enough to make it clear: Scientology was the way to move up in the company. I played the game for a while and did well there while managing to not become brain-washed, but, eventually, I had to bail. I'm a patient, easy going guy, but I could only take so much of their pseudo-scientific, pseudo-psychological, pseudo-religious cult junk before blowing a fuse.

      What I want to know is, if Scientology was the key to success, why then did the business fail? That company no longer exists. :)

      Don't know about your company, but Diskeeper is still in business because of it's affiliation with Microsoft and for no other reason.

    6. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The uncertainty principle says that you can't know the exact location and velocity of a particle. It doesn't say that a space warlord nuked some aliens on Earth thousands of years ago, set up a force field to keep their souls trapped here, that those trapped souls are the source of all problems in the world, and that the only way to get rid of them is to pay the Church of Scientology thousands of dollars to take courses.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what pseudo-science is - it incorporates the more obvious part of science (I HAVE A, AND I DO B, THEREFORE C!) and ignores the rigours and difficulty of ACTUAL science (I HAVE A, I HYPOTHESISE B AND CAREFULLY MAKE SURE X, Y AND Z AREN'T SKEWING MY RESULTS, AND I OBSERVE C, THEREFORE I SUBMIT THAT A WITH B MAKES C! PLEASE SCRUTINIZE MY METHODS AND RESULTS!). If something cannot be explained or measured but is touted as truth, it is not scientific. Similarly, it is very risky to call it a "reality" - like me, I'm sure you've seen magicians make all kinds of things happen, but I'm sure you don't actually have a gold-mine of pennies behind your ears. A good benchmark of whether a process is real or simply an illusion is; "Can I measure this scientifically, and isolate any external influences?" - if you can't, or if the proprietor of said process refuses, it's almost certainly a hoax/illusion. Again, If something cannot be explained or measured but is touted as truth, it is not scientific.

    8. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because God wanted it to, of course - He has a mightier LART then LRH does :)

    9. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by geekmux · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It's pseudo- all that. Even religion, given it was founded by a Sci-Fi writer aiming to create a popular religion.

      Not trying to defend Scientology at all here, but the words "founded by a Sci-Fi writer" could be theoretically used against any religion, depending on your perspective.

      And you're a moron for thinking otherwise. Science is science, no matter how much shit and religion you throw at it.

      Eh, not quite sure what you believe after reading this statement, but standing behind the wall of factual science has never helped your moral compass at all. Sometimes you need to believe in things that cannot be proven. People kneeling by the bedside of a dying loved one are not carrying around their Chemistry books.

      If something works for you, it might just be placebo effect - or it might be completely unrelated to whatever you're doing. Rain won't come by dancing. Science is confirmed by repeatable experiments and for any hypothesis to be science there also has to be a way to disprove it. And even then it isn't proof, it's merely a coherent theory.

      The world isn't as absolute as you paint it. Using science to prove the mass murder killed your neighbor due to a chemical imbalance in his brain isn't going to remove the pain and suffering of the victims families.

    10. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by he-sk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What kind of logic is that? You assert the Uncertainty Principle and conclude that science may or may not be right.

      Then it follows that the Uncertainty Principle itself may or may not be right!

      *POOF*, there goes your argument.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    11. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

      Eh, not quite sure what you believe after reading this statement, but standing behind the wall of factual science has never helped your moral compass at all. Sometimes you need to believe in things that cannot be proven. People kneeling by the bedside of a dying loved one are not carrying around their Chemistry books.

      If stoning people to death is considered "morality" then I'd be glad to call myself immoral. If you don't believe in stoning people to death then how do you choose what parts of the bible are moral and which parts are to be ignored? Who makes the distinction? You? If you you do then I guess religion has nothing to do with "morality". I've been at the deathbed of more than a couple family members and I wasn't carrying any books. I was there because they are family, I loved them and wanted to be with them to comfort them as the passed away. It has nothing to do with religion. It's called compassion and love and is not the sole domain of religion.

      The world isn't as absolute as you paint it. Using science to prove the mass murder killed your neighbor due to a chemical imbalance in his brain isn't going to remove the pain and suffering of the victims families.

      So you're saying that only religion can allevaiate suffering? That's the problem with you religious people. You think that the only reason people aren't self serving monsters is because of religion. Give yourself some credit. I really don't think you would be a depressed, murderous maniac without religion. You would probably just have a little more time on Sunday and wouldn't feel the need to convert everyone to your point of view. It's actually kind of nice to have a healthy debate without having to refer to one ancient and ridiculous text for all of your beliefs.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    12. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by bluephone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, quantum mechanics "proves" no such thing. What you're talking about related to the fact that atomic scale objects (molecules, atoms, protons, neutrons, etc) behave in ways consistent both with waves and particles.

      Second, the uncertainty principle deals with PARTICLES ONLY, in that you can not know with infinite precision both the location of a particle, and it's velocity. The greater precision you measure one, the less certain the other becomes.

      Third, you have proven beyond a doubt that having a low slashdot UID truly does NOT mean one is smarter than high UID users. For this, I thank you.

      --
      jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
    13. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I want to know is, if Scientology was the key to success, why then did the business fail? That company no longer exists. :)

      All office supply businesses are Scientology fronts. Church politics probably killed the one in question.

    14. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It doesn't say that a space warlord nuked some aliens on Earth thousands of years ago, set up a force field to keep their souls trapped here, that those trapped souls are the source of all problems in the world, and that the only way to get rid of them is to pay the Church of Scientology thousands of dollars to take courses.

      I'm pretty sure that's implied

    15. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't say that a space warlord nuked some aliens on Earth thousands of years ago

      You meant trillions. Yes, as in multiples of 10^12 years ago.

    16. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by Intrinsic · · Score: 1

      LOL, ok so I dont understand everything about what it is im talking about ill give you that, but that doesn't make me stupid, id like to think im pretty smart. :) Anyway I still like to find the truth in anything even if its absurd. :) I was trying to convey that you can use any theory or practice to allow you to reach the confines of your own limits. Sometimes people need to believe in the truth, hidden in lies to lift themselves up out of the situations they are in to get a clearer picture of the world. Of course there has to be a good reason for this and doing it out of fear is not one of them.

    17. Re:Been There, Forced To Do That by Intrinsic · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to add that from what quantum physics has taught me is that the observer and the observed are woven together, so part of what we are experiencing is part of who we are and so we to a certain extent create what we see around us, and I dont see science working that out.

  46. Interesting case by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have always felt that religion in the workplace should be forbidden as it creates a hostile work environment. I have always felt this, but I have never known this to be fact. It will be interesting to watch. Personally, I always feel uncomfortable when certain company meetings begin with prayer... if Scientology were required training, I'd be even more uncomfortable.

    1. Re:Interesting case by u38cg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When the prayers kick off, stand up, go outside, and ask them to call you back when they are done. I did this and very soon they dropped off the agenda.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:Interesting case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Personally, I always feel uncomfortable when certain company meetings begin with prayer...

      There's a simple solution to this. Simply volunteer to lead the prayer yourself. Then put your hands together solemnly, bow your head, and use these words:

      "Dread Satan, grant us the power to crush our competitors and consign their souls to Your fiery pits. Amen."

      You should find yourself feeling much, much better. And if you get fired, you can sue for religious discrimination!

    3. Re:Interesting case by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      I know in my state, it is a hostile work environment, and things like freedom of speech and religion don't apply because employees are a "captive audience" to something completely unrelated to the business at hand.

      Hence, you can't preach religion or political points of view in the workplace unless they have a very clear business purpose.

      If your employer is a religion (ie. clergy/church) or politics (a political campaign), then obviously you knew what you were getting into when you took the job, and have implied consent to those points of view.

      But if you're making disk defragmentation software... yeah, neither faith or politics have a business purpose.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  47. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by naoursla · · Score: 4, Funny

    > Last time I checked PEOPLE, NOT CORPORATIONS enjoyed constitutional protections such as the 1st Amendment.

    Hold on... Are you telling me that corporations can't get married.

    I guess the wedding is off.

    How am I going to break the news to my family?

    Worse, how is my true love going to break the news to her board of directors?

  48. Double Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried Diskeeper once, and as far as I'm concerned it's just a big scam. It appeared to just be a pretty interface to the built-in Windows defragger. Why bother? I switched to O&O Defragger and found that it actually does as advertised.

    So I can't honestly say I'm surprised to learn that one scam is associated with another.

  49. Diplomatic Immunity by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

    It's just been revoked!

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  50. Re:Freedoms of religion and association by Dan541 · · Score: 1

    Scientology is a cult.

    Why would we support it?

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  51. I wish... by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 1

    ...that someone would declare all this new-age bullshit like "team-building", LEAN and Six Sigma to be a religion. Every frigging employer I've ever has tried to ram that rubbish down my throat at some point or other. I don't believe any of it works, and I never will.

    --
    -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
  52. Helio's Sky Dayton recruited employees' kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mobile carrier Helio was founded by known Scientologist Sky Dayton. Like Diskeeper's founder, Sky Dayton also abused his position to promote Scientology, but Sky was a bit more subtle about it. On two occasions an Exchange meeting invite for a presentation located in a conference room in Helio's corporate headquarters was sent to the entire company. The invitation read, "Sky Dayton has invited representatives from his prep school alma mater, the Delphian School in Oregon [...] to do a presentation..." and contained a personal endorsement of the school by Sky. Questions were to be directed to a Helio employee in the Human Resources department. A quick bit of research revealed that the Delphian School is one of Scientology's many front organizations. Sky Dayton's recruitment of employees' children to Scientology did not stop until an employee threatened to sue under the EEOC.

    You don't want to work for a Scientologist. Before you accept a job offer, find out whether the company is run by them.

  53. Scientology? Ya think? by cjohnsen · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been a Diskeeper customer for several years. Every year around Christmas time (excepting this year), I've received a Christmas card from them containing an L. Ron Hubbard quote. I've always been slightly annoyed by this, as I'm no Scientology fan, but I've put up with it because I haven't been able to find a suitable replacement for their Undelete software. http://www.undelete.com/ If someone can recommend a good replacement, I'd be happy to ditch them.

  54. Re:Freedoms of religion and association by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    The other 102 employees can practice whatever they want. The point is that the employer does not have the right to force a particular practice on the 103rd employee.

    Government has become involved in the workplace because past egregious abuses on the part of employers has shown it to be necessary.

    Yes it would be nice if it wasn't needed but history has proven otherwise. Lesser evil and all that.

    Over time a body of law has built up in this country protecting employees from certain types of discrimination - gender, race, age and religion are some of the main protected classes. These laws exist because of past abuses that have established that these laws are needed. The religious protection came in as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

  55. My experience at Diskeeper job interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My own experience with Diskeeper.

    This was one of the most frustrating experiences of my life. I showed up for an interview at the L.A offices in 2002 or 2003. At the time I knew almost nothing of the COS. I did know that my current boss was from a family of hard-core COS followers. This was one of my last interviews of my "junior years". I'm un-ease, eager to please, eager to get a new job, dare I say, very impressionable.

    So here I am waiting in the lobby. Looking around I see a row of huge books (10-12 inches tall), from L. Ron Hubbard, known to me only as a sci-fi writer, and I love sci-fi. Each book had titles related to good management, personal growth and similar stuff. More books a bit further, too far to see the titles. A picture of LRH was hanging on a wall in the back. Something was strange.

    I meet the RH person, after a few nice words; the conversation turns on to Dianetics, how incredibly great it is, how it would help me like it helped others, and how we all owe it to the great LRH, and how incredible he was. I nod my head and am somewhat curious.
    After some small talk, I am asked to do a quick personality test. I heard before that many businesses do this, but it was the first time for me. The questions where a bit strange, not quite like the personality test from high-school. Once done I gave it back and the HR "corrects it" on the spot in front of me. I then receive strange comment about some strength, and others I will need to improve.

    I then get a quick tour of the place, where I am told that every new employee gets a free (and mandatory) "3 day seminar" on the week-end before they start working. After that the employees must stay at the office several evenings for a few hours for at least a month (less often after that) to receive evaluations and more "training". They really want to keep people educated to the latest technology was my thought.

    More small talk walking around. Back to the lobby, "We will call you soon for another meeting. Once home, curious about that test I hit Google with some of the questions I remembered from the test.

    I was in shock! I studied COS the entire week-end and felt violated in my intellectual integrity. Looking back at it, this was clearly some attempt to enrol me into COS. The test is a sham, not recognize by any real professional in any science. Many claim it's purposely design for failure, you need help and guess who will help you.

    Reading on I realized that almost every phrase I heard was to lure me into COS. The "free 3 day seminar" coukd only be the horrible COS spirit breaking seminar used to bring new sheep in. The following evenings of reviews were for COS audits.

    I started to be angry. I read that like many cults they use these seminars to manipulate people in despair looking for help. I quickly understood that depressed by a boring job I was in the right state of mind to be a victim. Now I was just mad.

    Worst part was, the more I read on scientology and "audits" treatment, the more I realized my current boss (from a family of COS) was using these tactics at work. Making you feel like crap, incompetent, never doing any good work, so when he asked anything we would all comply ASAP. At least it was a wake up call, I changed job, realized how good I really am, and hated the COS ever since ... and it's personal.

    1. Re:My experience at Diskeeper job interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I interviewed with them at their Glendale office in 1991 or so. they wanted me to take over complete support of their VMS product. Half the interview was being told about Scientology by their HR director. 5 minutes with the IT director. The rest with the guy I'd be replacing. He seemed desperate to find someone and they offered me a job on the spot. I turned them down, telling them Scientology was the reason. What surprised me most was the tour of the office. Back then, VMS was pretty much the bulk of their business. yet they only had a single tech person supporting it. But they had room after room of phone support, probably 100 people at desks with headsets during my visit. I really doubt they were doing VMS customer support.

    2. Re:My experience at Diskeeper job interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I had a similar experience recently. I had no idea about the COS connection, until working on the pre-employment "questionnaires." One of them (that I saved) had TWO HUNDRED questions, including:

      Do you browse through railway timetables, directories or dictionaries just for pleasure?

      Do you intend two or less children in your family even though your health and income will permit more?

      I researched and found that the questionnaires were COS personality tests, used by COS to recruit new members, so I stopped doing the questionnaires. They still called me in for an interview, which I decided to attend. The HR person was exceedingly late, so I had to sit in their lobby staring at their shelf of Hubbard management books for a long time. When the HR person was finally ready, her first question was, "how would you define a product?" I gave my answer, she replied with Hubbard's. She mentioned that many employees are COS members, but that it was not a requirement for employment. She went on to share the virtues of the Hubbard management philosophy, employed at Diskeeper, and then dropped a bombshell--- if hired, I would be required to attend 4 hours of management classes per day in addition to my regular shift, five days per week, for the first 3 months of employment! The classes were very valuable, so I would not be paid for attending. Now that I think of it, it could have been 6 hours of class and a 6 hour shift... I definitely remember the total was 12 hours per day, though.

      At that point I wanted to leave, but I agreed when asked if I wanted to meet the hiring manager. She asked me to wait... and I did, for quite a while. The HR person eventually returned and said the hiring manager was still not ready, and asked if I could wait more. I politely excused myself and never looked back.

    3. Re:My experience at Diskeeper job interview by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      A weekend indoctrination seminar?

      Are you sure they weren't Movementarians?

      http://www.thesimpsons.com/episode_guide/0913.htm

      Sing it with me: NA-NA NA-NA NA-NA NA-NA, LEA-DER!

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    4. Re:My experience at Diskeeper job interview by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      Well said. That feeling of confusion, turned to curiosity, and finally turned to anger and violation is exactly how I felt when a guest speaker entered my physics classroom in high-school and began speaking about the "flaws" of evolution. (It was a community out-reach day, so a variety of people from around the city had a chance to talk about something, even though they were prohibited from talking about politics and religion.)

      How was a high-school student supposed to argue about the magnetic sphere, rates of erosion, and information theory? I raised my hand and tried to tell him that the so-called "missing links" weren't in fact missing, but I just didn't have the tools. These were quibbling bits of creationist talking points, but I was never introduced to those arguments (I later found these "problems of evolution" to be long-since discredited on sites like talkorigins and wikipedia). Plus he was an ex-engineer and a current priest, so I just didn't have a rhetorical chance in hell.

      I still remember the reaction of someone sitting next to me: a none-too-particularly-bright fellow, at least in physics class, suddenly had a burst of clarity: "He's right. Evolution is full of shit."

      I was in shock! I studied COS the entire week-end and felt violated in my intellectual integrity. Looking back at it, this was clearly some attempt to enrol me into COS. The test is a sham, not recognize by any real professional in any science.

      I know exactly how you felt. I just hope I have enough knowledge and experience in the future not to get cornered like I did before (and like you did).

    5. Re:My experience at Diskeeper job interview by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      realized my current boss (from a family of COS) was using these tactics at work. Making you feel like crap, incompetent, never doing any good work, so when he asked anything we would all comply ASAP.

      Steve Jobs is a Scientologist?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  56. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by m03 · · Score: 4, Funny

    > Hold on... Are you telling me that corporations can't get married.

    Well, certainly not gay corporations.

  57. Re:California is a at will state by lyml · · Score: 1

    That's an odd standpoint.

    By that logic I can't argue against anything because that would mean I have a hidden in favor of that which I am arguing against?

    Secondly since when did aknowledging the existance of racism or laws against racism imply the beleif that 'straight white people ROCK[sic]'?

  58. Dianetics Diskeeper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the company has a version of Diskeeper to defragment my engrams?

    1. Re:Dianetics Diskeeper by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      Huh? I thought it was my Thetans that needed defragging.

      I never understood Hubbard's *hack* "theology") *barf* but maybe it's good that I don't understand...

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  59. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, in News South Wales, Australia, cartoon characters are considered "persons" by the NSW Supreme Court.
    source

    I want to see a polygamous marriage of a human being, a cartoon character of the same sex, and a corporation.

  60. Someone is suing Scientology? by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Something backward about this. :P

  61. Re:California is a at will state by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    In order for your example to make any sense, it presumes that able straight white people ROCK, and everyone else sucks or else why do they need legal protection? Oh right, because of all the racists...

    Or, you could see that there are a lot of problems with racism in hiring and in the workplace and you think that it is not a good idea. Try to be on the receiving end of bigotry for once, and you might have some idea of what I am talking about. It's not that one believes that one group is superior and that the others therefore need protection. It is that one sees one group of people not even considering people from another group simply because they are from that other group. You see this a good bit, for example, in academia, particularly in the sciences and in engineering. There are plenty of white professors who only have white people working for them, or Chinese professors who only have other Chinese (not even any other East Asian, but only Chinese) working for them. You see this in the South (Southeast U.S., that is) where so many companies at best grudgingly hire non-WASPs (just enough to keep the EEOC off their backs), but still treat them like shit.

    In short, go fuck yourself. You have no clue what you are talking about.

  62. Re:California is a at will state by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

    Why not extend non-discrimination to associations beyond employment? Like friendships or marriage?
    Lots of money and social standing gets shared by marriage and friendships. And due to unjust historical circumstances, blacks in America have been deprived of these to an extent. It's a known fact that white men tend to marry white women: they obviously discriminate. If non-discrimination was enforced there, then maybe there would not be so much inequality. And don't say that this would infringe the rights of those racist white men to associate with whom they want, because that's the same reason that was used in trying to keep equality out of employment and housing. And one spends nearly as much time with marriage partners as with co-workers, so -- even if we could understand enforcing non-discrimination on racists as a burden for them with their racist tastes -- non-discrimination in marriage would be no dissimilar burden to them as non-discrimination in employment.

  63. Re:California is a at will state by Your.Master · · Score: 1

    Or, maybe he's studied some history for more than 5 minutes, and knows that all of those groups were fired for being what they are within the last 100 years, and legislation protecting said groups is VERY recent (within living memory of older people even many of the most progressive countries).

    You presumptuous dickbag.

  64. Re:California is a at will state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you're just making wild claims of projecting to cover up your own guilty feelings?

  65. Recycle Bin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about the Recycle Bin? Works much more reliably.

    1. Re:Recycle Bin by cjohnsen · · Score: 1

      yeah works great on the local machine, but undelete gives me a "network recycle bin" accessible by all users.

    2. Re:Recycle Bin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that putting things in the Recycle Bin doesn't actually delete them, right? There's a limit on the size of files you can put in there, too. And you can't movie files on external devices into the recycle bin.

  66. Almost all firings are "I don't like you" by davidwr · · Score: 2, Informative

    The official reasons for firings vary, but the unwritten reason is almost always "I don't like you," "I've lost confidence in your ability to do the job," or "You are too big a liability to the company."

    You may do your job well and not steal, but if you boss doesn't like you...

    Your boss may like you and you may not rob the company blind, but if you constantly miss reasonable deadlines...

    Your boss may like you and you may do your work well, but if you were caught at home snorting coke and your employer's name was on the 5 o'clock news...

    That probably covers 99% of individual firings and targeted "layoffs." Un-targeted layoffs are another matter.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  67. Perhaps in California, but not in California. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have a contract in place, then it is by breach of contract that it is nullified. Out here in non-incorporated America of Several nameless States, a contract is idolatry and an abomination towards the nature of man to work his will and trade those burdens as he bore and bears them upon his shoulders without any of the magician-work legislatures conjure. If you need a contract to work, then there is a disability in your character and you are not whole and equal in the law to another man. As for a corporation, there are those natural and then there is the chicanery caused by regulation of the legislature. As for me, I grow vegetable and feed animals; at the end of the day, whomever helped gets his fare share to the quality of work and in respects to my house a measure in the outcome on the sale. Who says you need corporate STATE OF CALIFORNIA alienating California to make a living? Find an unimproved soil out in the desert and work it: no permission needed when you don't violate another's security interest when your land patent overcome's their stale stake they would perfect due their pretended carpetbagger nature to assert in land when they do not work for it.

  68. Of course not! You can just---- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Shell out money for deep hypnotic manipulation of your homosexual workers, get invasive plastic surgery for your negroid employees, and simply place all the "handicapped accessible" bathrooms and fascilities in an isolated section of your corporate locale, so that nobody has to see those damn cripples. :D

    Afterall, DiskKeeper's handlers werent FIRING people for NOT being scientologists, they were actively attempting to MAKE THEM INTO scientologists.

    Dont fire the black people-- Turn them white with expensive cosmetic surgery instead! Afterall, it's a key business tactic! [Hey, it worked for Micheal Jackson!]

  69. Good Luck by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Evangelical Christians have been doing this for years. You've either 'found Jesus' or you're out. And complaining about a hostile workplace can work both ways. The Christians can claim a hostile environment is being created by those of other faiths in their workplace.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Good Luck by houghi · · Score: 1

      I have worked in many places and I have never heard of any religion being part of any decisions considering employment. I have never heard so from friends of one changes job about every year or two. In almost all companies you got evaluated (and promoted/got a raise) on performance.
      Never has anybody spoken to me about religion or my or their believes. From some people we know what believe they are and nobody really cares.

      The moment something like that would happen, I would go to any union of a different mindset and they will take serious action and sue that person/company for racism. Not something they would want. Oh yeah, I live in Europe, Belgium.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Good Luck by bruce_garrett · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This. I once worked for a small business owned and run by a fundamentalist nutcase. He had his employee lunchroom littered with his religious pamphlets and conversation with him about...well...anything...was peppered with Jesus talk. He was careful to keep it away from most of his clients, but the employees got it constantly. He would hold regular lunchtime prayer meetings in the lunch room. He seemed to believe that since it was his business, he was entitled to barrage anyone who worked for him with his religion. And he made no bones about favoring the employees who went along with it over those who tried to keep it at arm's length while they worked.

      If this case ever gets into the Federal Courts, expect all the usual suspects from the religious right to side with the Scientologists. Expect then to claim that it's everyone else who are harassing the Christians (according to their version of Christianity). If their religious beliefs require them to only employ other Christians, or promote members of their own church over employees who aren't, then when you complain about that you are harassing them. They are not harassing you when they try to impose their religion on you, they're trying to save your soul. They're doing it out of love. If you complain you are being hateful.

      The argument has always been that a secular society that values tolerance and religious pluralism is necessarily hostile toward them. If you teach science in the classroom you are attacking their beliefs. If pharmacists can't pick and choose which prescriptions they will fill, and for whom, based on their beliefs you are attacking their beliefs. If landlords can't rent to, if businesses can't employ and serve, only members of their own religion, you are attacking their beliefs. Laws that protect everyone, them included, from discrimination, attack their beliefs because those laws don't allow them discriminate against everyone else. But repealing all the anti-discrimination laws would also be an attack on their beliefs, since that would allow other people to discriminate against them. The only way for them to be free from discrimination, is for everyone to embrace their beliefs whether we want to or not. And it's for our own good anyway.

      It would be a Pyrrhic victory for Scientology if Diskeeper's argument won the day. But it's a safe bet that if this thing gets any further the Scientologists will be more then happy to buddy up with the Christian religious right since they both have common enemies in secularism and pluralism.

    3. Re:Good Luck by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points I might mod this insightful.

      I couldn't figure out what their angle here is. They will lose on the arguments they are putting out.

      Now, Scientology doesn't really care if they win or lose a case, as long as they gain something or damage an enemy worse.

      This wouldn't damage the enemy at all if they lost. I couldn't see what they'd gain in a loss.

      But as you point out, they may be able to start waving the persecution flag and gain some beneficial PR out of this. Now it's starting to make sense.

    4. Re:Good Luck by PPH · · Score: 1

      I suppose that if your (ex) boss really held any convictions about his beliefs, he'd come clean about them in the presence of customers as well.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Good Luck by PPH · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I live in Europe, Belgium.

      Europe has a much more enlightened attitude toward religion than the USA (isn't that what the Enlightenment was about?). Its more of a personal choice rather than something to be forced upon people by social coersion. Probably because Europeans lived through a few Inquisitions.

      In spite of the propaganda, many of the early settlers of the Colonies were riff-raff thrown out of various European countries (Paul Hogan once remarked that Australians and Americans had a lot in common. Australians were the criminals who got caught. Americans were the ones who got away). One big reason for getting on the wrong side of the law in Europe was practicing the 'wrong' religion and being a pain in the ass about it. That's a pretty good description of the Evangelical Christians in the USA. And they are frighteningly similar to Islamist fundamentalists in their belief that religion, economics, and politics should be intertwined.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  70. Slashdot runs ads for Scientology now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What's up with that?

    The google ad on this very page is for the Scientology video channel. What the heck is with that? At the very least, it's inappropriate. Will we see RIAA ads next?

    Posting as AC, not logged in, for reasonably paranoid reasons.

    1. Re:Slashdot runs ads for Scientology now? by antispam_ben · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's because Google Ads are driven by keywords on whatever page it's attached to, so that the ads are more "targeted" than just coming up at random. We're discussing Scientology, and Scientology has Google Ads, so the (ahem) "appropriate" *cough* ads show up.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  71. thetans on my hard drive??? by ethicalBob · · Score: 3, Funny

    So what you are saying is that my Hard Drive isn't fragmented; it's really full of Body Thetans?

    Sh*t!

    I better get an audit soon, so I can get my OSX to be OT-5.... Thank the FSM that my Linux install is already "clear"!

    I for one welcome a Hard-Drive overlord - but sorry, I have to denounce Xenu.

    (sorry, couldn't resist...)

    --
    Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
  72. first amendment law by azakem · · Score: 5, Informative

    IANAL, but if I had to guess...

    Diskeeper is probably arguing from Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos. A gym open to the public but affiliated with the Church of Latter Day Saints fired a janitor who wasn't a Mormon. The janitor sued, arguing the exemption for religious organizations from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (prohibiting religious discrimination in employment) violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. IIRC, the Church argued that this exemption was a permissible accommodation of the Church's free exercise rights under the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with the Church.

    The problem is, Diskeeper isn't a religious organization, so they don't qualify for the statutory exemption in Title VII. While religious instruction in the workplace may or may not be lawful, making continued employment dependent on religious instruction in a particular faith almost certainly is unlawful.

    Hopefully Diskeeper goes down at the summary judgment stage, if not on a motion to dismiss.

    1. Re:first amendment law by upuv · · Score: 1

      Good find.

      I spent the better part of the afternoon looking for the ref: Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos. Never found it.

      If these men were truly fired for not participating in a religious activity in the office. ( As so often happens on Slashdot not all the facts are in on first posting. ) I hope the Judge slaps them HARD. I also hope this sets precedent in US law. The US seriously needs to ensure that the church, what ever church it may be has no more influence in the affairs of government and business.

    2. Re:first amendment law by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      The problem is, SCIENTOLOGY isn't a religious organization,

      fixed that for you.

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    3. Re:first amendment law by QuietObserver · · Score: 1

      I spent the better part of the afternoon looking for the ref: Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos.

      The actual case is "Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos". I searched Google and found it immediately, but then again, I knew exactly what to look for (being a member of said church).

      That said, my brief examination of the case in point revealed that the facility in question was "a nonprofit facility . . . run by religious entities associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" (http://supreme.justia.com/us/483/327, referring to 483 U.S. 327). As the OP pointed out, the Supreme Court sided with the LDS Church. The same article points out that an exemption to Title VII (listed as 702) can be applied to "religious organizations' secular activites" without violating the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.

      Of course, as also stated by the OP, Diskeeper is not a religious organization, and it would be a stretch to claim that it's run by a religious entity associated with a religious organization. Hope this helps.

  73. You can tell if it's a religion by ... by antispam_ben · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A religion does two things: Prays to God, and passes the collection basket.

    Scientology is not a religion.

    Alcoholics Anonymous is a religion.

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
    1. Re:You can tell if it's a religion by ... by oberondarksoul · · Score: 1

      Buddhism lacks a god one prays to; is it not a religion?

      --
      And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
    2. Re:You can tell if it's a religion by ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddhism lacks a god one prays to; is it not a religion?

      Correct. Buddhism is a philosophy. Some consider it to be a religion, but they are incorrect.

    3. Re:You can tell if it's a religion by ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm...

      religion [ri-lij-uhn]
      noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
      2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
      3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
      4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
      5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
      6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

      Buddhism [boo-diz-uhm, bood-iz-]
      noun a religion, originated in India by Buddha (Gautama) and later spreading to China, Burma, Japan, Tibet, and parts of southeast Asia, holding that life is full of suffering caused by desire and that the way to end this suffering is through enlightenment that enables one to halt the endless sequence of births and deaths to which one is otherwise subject.

      Sorry, but the dictionary is more authoritative than some random guy on Slashdot.

    4. Re:You can tell if it's a religion by ... by aaronfaby · · Score: 1

      Well, partially correct. Considering that Buddha has essentially been deified, and many Buddhists even pray before an extremely large statue of Buddha in their temples, I would consider that a religious environment.

    5. Re:You can tell if it's a religion by ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using that definition, buddhism isn't a religion, either.

      That being said, as usual, you have to distinguish between scientology-the-belief-system and scientology-the-organization (the CoS). The former is entirely whacky, but ultimately not more so than, say, catholicism (although that says more about catholicism than scientology); the latter is a criminal organization.

      However, it's important to keep them apart.

  74. Reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So how much of Linux was programmed by avowed Scientologists? Christian fanatics? Or other types of people who some others might not like?

    Will we really want to split up the world along such kinds of lines?

    1. Re:Reason? by cp.tar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we can inspect the source, it doesn't really matter who they are. The moment the source is closed, we can trust it about as much as we can trust the author.
      Would you trust a program with a root-level access to your data written by a Scientologist, and whose source you cannot inpect?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    2. Re:Reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it any different than another religion that you cannot inspect the source?? Not that I'm showing preferential treatment to Scientology mind you.

    3. Re:Reason? by Sophira · · Score: 1

      Being able to inspect the source isn't the be-all and end-all. In some cases there may be more than you bargained for.

      It depends very much on specific circumstances, of course, and with the fast progress of software nowadays you'd really need to be in control of both the compiler source and the target's source to pull this off. But the possibility is there.

    4. Re:Reason? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, it is different. Scientologists have a documented history of intentional deceit and underhanded behavior as part of official church policy to a degree much larger than any other well known religion.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:Reason? by cp.tar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is it any different than another religion that you cannot inspect the source?? Not that I'm showing preferential treatment to Scientology mind you.

      Of course you are not showing preferential treatment; in fact, you are attempting to be even-handed to the point of political correctness.

      The point is, I am aware of no other religion that makes (or at least made) the utter destruction of its opponents by any and all means necessary a part of its official policy. Mind you, Islamic terrorists (as a prototypical example) do not qualify: their actions are based on a selective reading of their holy book. In Scientology, there is no selective reading; the Fair Game doctrine was/is their official doctrine.

      Besides, if those prototypical Islamic terrorists got hold of my data, there is not much they would do with it. They do not engage in smear campaigns and turning the authorities on me. OTOH, the CoS might, for instance, report me as a paedophile if they find something matching hentai*.jpg (I've seen way too often that hentai == paedo in people's minds, even if all the characters have tits bigger than their heads). It doesn't matter if I am later proven innocent; my name would be ruined.

      Luckily for me, I eschew Windows in general, except for gaming purposes. And lately, even the games I play are legit.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    6. Re:Reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up -- these CoS people are dangerous.

    7. Re:Reason? by Brain+Damaged+Bogan · · Score: 2, Informative

      the vast majority of religions are completely open source... you can inspect the source of the bible and many people have forked it over time so we've ended up with KJV, GoodNews bible and mutliple spin off religions such as jehovas witnesses, catholicism, protestantarianism, fundamentalism etc.
      that's not to discount the other open source religions such as buddhism, doaism etc... by definition a religion is open source... by definition a cult is closed source.

      --
      -- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
    8. Re:Reason? by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 2, Interesting
    9. Re:Reason? by stanjam · · Score: 1

      YEs, it IS different. Mostly because Scientology is a cult, not a Religion. They have already been found guilty once of trying to infiltrate the U.S. government. There is ample evidence that they have also murdered several people in their care. They routinely harass anyone who disagrees with them, even to the point of launching massive campaigns to try and ruin those people. They indoctrinate their followers with a bunch of garbage and then milk them for money. If they get the opportunity they then isolate them away from all others and brainwash the heck out of them. The whole Religion is based off of a sci-fi short story that was crap to begin with! Scientology has shown, in the past, that they are willing to violate just about any law to get what they want. Any software they produce should not be trusted unless it is completely open source. Even then, I would want to compile it myself.

      --
      Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
  75. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Hold on... Are you telling me that corporations can't get married

    It's called a "Merger".

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  76. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    Worth mentioning, 60 seconds in court is still a ton of lawyer-time, which both DiskKeeper and the CoS can afford, but the individual employees probably can't.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  77. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Trust me, both you and Apple are happier this way. She was cheating on you with Office-for-Mac anyway.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  78. Here Comes Trouble (again) by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1

    To think, all those years some of us though of Microsoft as being an evil corporation and then we learn about Diskeeper which IS evil and manditorily requires their employees to join the CULT of $cientology.

    I forsee quite a bit of Rickrolling in their future.

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  79. AWESOME by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

    AWESOME video ad on the article, google! (scientology.org ftw!)

  80. Scientology is not a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a cult.

  81. Diskeeper is pretty uneccessary. by elipwnd · · Score: 1

    I don't think anyone pointed this out, but the Diskeeper program itself is pretty bad. Who honestly needs to defrag their system constantly? I would think the constant load on your CPU would more than negate the marginal benefit you get from defraging your hard drive in the background.

    --
    Eli's Refrigerator Box: http://refrigeratorbox.co.cc
  82. Scientology by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In a civilized country this "church" would be declared to be a criminal organization, banned, and its leaders would be prosecuted for fraud, extortion and other obviously illegal activities -- all without a need for a single complaint or a civil lawsuit because this is what police and criminal courts are for.

    However in US, where people value "freedom" (the American version of "freedom" that means "you can get away with anything as long as you are rich enough"), they would rather pretend, it's all perfectly normal, and instead chase pot smokers and random Arabs.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:Scientology by aCC · · Score: 1

      Which is the reason why Germany doesn't accept them as a religion:
      http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/

      More or less it is classed as a commercial organisation.

    2. Re:Scientology by winwar · · Score: 1

      "Which is the reason why Germany doesn't accept them as a religion:"

      I doubt that is the reason. There is close cooperation between religion and the state in Germany (religious organizations can be corporations). If you declare yourself to be of a certain religion, the government will happily levy a religious tax you...

      Scientology probably didn't want to play ball....

    3. Re:Scientology by aCC · · Score: 1

      If you declare yourself to be of a certain religion, the government will happily levy a religious tax [on] you...

      Yes, but you got it the wrong way round, because that tax doesn't go to the government. It goes to the religious organisation. Which is one of the reasons why Scientology really wanted to be accepted as an official religion. They wanted "to play ball", but the goverment (and independent courts) refused them the status as an official religion. I guess you can read about it in the link I supplied.

  83. Re:California is a at will state by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Funny

    You should pay higher taxes if you don't have any black friends.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  84. While we're at forcing religion on people... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    How about court mandated twelve step programs? I know, it's a little bit offtopic, but then again, it shows that religious prejudice can not only be found in companies but even in court orders.

    I don't want to speak out for the Cult of Scientology, quite far from it. I just want to point out that cramming religion down people's throats isn't limited to one cult. Some cults even have governmental support for their cause.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:While we're at forcing religion on people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, there's an even more basic problem with our court systems; the swearing-in of witnesses with a copy of the Bible. This pretty much automatically means that the testimony of non-christians will be less valued by a jury.

  85. Wow - another boycott in progress by CaliforniaKevin · · Score: 1

    This anti freedom fool will nover see my money again. I will never buy anymore diskeeper products.. Scientology....Germany banned them because they can see they are just like the NAZI's

    1. Re:Wow - another boycott in progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they are not *banned* in Germany...

  86. Right of free association by Solandri · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    As much as I dislike scientology, if Diskkeeper is a private company, they can hire whomever they want using whatever methods they want. Your freedom to associate and do business with whom you wish is one of the most fundamental rights not listed in the Bill of Rights. If I own my own company and want to hire only people who can recite the Jabberwocky from memory, or are missing one finger, or are/aren't black/white/Chinese/family members, I can. If you are operating independently, the law cannot force you to conduct business with someone whom you don't wish to conduct business. Things like the Equal Opportunity Employer requirements only apply if the company is accepting government contracts, or if they're voluntarily following EEOC guidelines.

    1. Re:Right of free association by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      So then lets take that from one idiot group to every country owned by the religious right saying "Screw hiring towel heads". Is that the kind of power over the private sector we want religion to have? They have enough influance without new toys

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
  87. JkDefrag: Better, free, open source, and no cult. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Agreed. My experience is that JkDefrag is FAR better than the very quirky and badly named Diskeeper. Quote from the first page:

    "JkDefrag is a disk defragmenter and optimizer for Windows 2000/2003/XP/Vista/2008/X64. Completely automatic and very easy to use, fast, low overhead, with several optimization strategies, and can handle floppies, USB disks, memory sticks, and anything else that looks like a disk to Windows. Included are a Windows version, a commandline version (for scheduling by the task scheduler or for use from administrator scripts), a screensaver version, a DLL library (for use from programming languages), versions for Windows X64, and the complete sources."

    Diskeeper? Is that Dis keeper, a keeper of disrespect? Or Disk eeper, something that causes a fear of disks? Shouldn't there be another K?

    If you want to be abused by a defragmentation program, you will have to pay dearly. Sorry, no abuse with the free and open source JkDefrag; remember the old saying, "You get what you pay for."

  88. Microsoft bought a limited version of Diskeeper. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, not a fork. Microsoft bought a very limited version of Diskeeper for use with its products.

  89. Looks like there are European links to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going to diskeeper's European site, you can see that they are based in East Grinstead, Sussex, also known as the UK/European head office base for Scientology...

  90. Who Cares About Reiser? by maz2331 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I personally don't care if the developer killed his wife or not - if the filesystem works, it works.

    1. Re:Who Cares About Reiser? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I personally don't care if the developer killed his wife or not - if the filesystem works, it works.

      Does this mean that you don't care if the developers of Diskkeeper are Scientologists, as long as the software works?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  91. some overview of other scientology companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I should boycott too?

  92. Supreme Court? by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    My guess is that they want a test case to push to the SCOTUS if necessary.

    There may be a razor-thin chance of overturning anti-discrimination law under certain "narrow" circumstances.

    The argument would be a first amendment violation for freedom of religion and additionally freedom of association.

    If they are a privately-held company there is actually a snowball's chance in Hell that it could actually fly. Publicly traded corporations can be argued to be "different" in some way from those that aren't.

    Never underestimate what some slimeball posing as a lawyer can sell - especially to the 5 conservatives on the SCOTUS.

  93. *laugh* Check out the ad... by Onion · · Score: 1

    So I start reading the comments, and at the top of the page is an ad for the "Scientology Video Channel". Thats darn funny.

  94. Scientology is a dangerous cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger
          stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very
          space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet,
          178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to
          be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the
          principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones
          were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to
          Las Palmas and there "packaged".

          His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading
          data by means of circuits etc. was placed in the implants.

          When through with his crime loyal officers (to the people)
          captured him after six years of battle and put him in an
          electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone.
          The place (Confederation) has since been a desert. The length
          and brutality of it all was such that this Confederation never
          recovered. The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc)
          anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been
          dispensed with by my tech development.

          One can freewheel through the implant and die unless it is
          approached as precisely outlined. The "freewheel" (auto-running
          on and on) lasts too long, denies sleep etc and one dies. So be
          careful to do only Incidents I and II as given and not plow
          around and fail to complete one thetan at a time.

          In December 1967 I knew someone had to take the plunge. I did
          and emerged very knocked out, but alive. Probably the only one
          ever to do so in 75,000,000 years. I have all the data now, but
          only that given here is needful.

          One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or
          to the body.

          One has to clean them off by running incident II and Incident I.
          It is a long job, requiring care, patience and good auditing.
          You are running beings. They respond like any preclear. Some
          large, some small.

          Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error.
          Good luck.

  95. Persons != Individuals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A person is a legal entity that can be assigned rights and duties. In legal terms, a person can be an Individual (natural person) or a Corporation (artificial person).

    Companies are persons. They do have legal and constitutional rights. Exactly how far those rights extend is a matter of legal argument. And I am not a lawyer.

  96. Brilliant! by Digital+End · · Score: 1

    This will save a fortune! All I have to say is Leviticus 21:16-20

    We can't have those horrible deformed people in the office, so that means I can save money on wheelchair accessability.

    --
    Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
  97. Yawn. by Chep · · Score: 2, Informative

    The very first version of Diskeeper (for Windows NT 3.5, at a time MSFT claimed, just as a lot of ext3 users still do nowadays (ahem..), that NTFS did not require any defragmentation) had very obvious references to Scientology and Ron Hubbard plastered about everywhere (about box, help files, I seem to remember -- but forgive me, that was 14+ years ago -- a page in the help file "about Scientology" or "about Dianetics" or something. It got quickly toned town when they cut the deal with MSFT, something like MS gets the low-level code to integrate into NT's API, but they keep it a bit quieter.

    Funny to see that shit bite them back now.

    PS: oh, and that copy of Diskeeper sure helped my 3.5 box a helluva way, at the time. Nefarious loonies they are, but they did cause the state of arts and crafts to advance a bit, for which credit is due to them.

  98. Re:JkDefrag: Better, free, open source, and no cul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Bravo! I am truly astounded.

    Rarely is there a troll of your caliber. You can really see the determination. Reading comprehension has met its match in you. Way to not get it, guy!

  99. Re:JkDefrag: Better, free, open source, and no cul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might want to actually *read* the original post.

    It said, "If you want to be abused by a defragmentation program..."

    Then you said, "So, if you pay nothing, you get nothing. Moron."

    Duh! Nothing implies no abuse. If you pay for it, then it implies that you will get a non-nothing amount of abuse.

    Having a little trouble with reading comprehension, are we? You might want to pay attention before calling someone a moron.

    KTHX BYE

  100. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by geekmux · · Score: 1

    Last time I checked PEOPLE, NOT CORPORATIONS enjoyed constitutional protections such as the 1st Amendment.

    Hate to burst your bubble, but there have been several court decisions stating the corporations do indeed have freedom of speech protections granted by the first amendment. This is because corporations are considered to be legal "persons". Don't think this will help Diskeeper.

    True, but just like any other idiot standing in the streets chanting "fuck the motherfuckers!" First Amendment rights do not protect you from the consequences of your actions, as we're likely to see here. Pissing of whatever customer base you might have left in this economy is not a wise financial move. I predict bankruptcy just prior to actually having to pay the lawsuit settlement.

  101. Who you calling a cult? by geekmux · · Score: 1

    Scientology is a cult.

    Why would we support it?

    First let me say that I agree with your statement 100%.

    Now, that being said, imagine for a moment. It's circa 500 A.D., and the old man across the street gathers all the children around to listen to him tell the tale of a guy they tortured and nailed to a cross who died and then came back to life 3 days later to wash away all your sins.

    Hrm. Guy comes back to life with magical healing power vs. the Alien mothership. The only thing that has made one more believable than the other is 2000 years of fanatical following.

    Somehow I believe the word "cult" was related to religious belief far before this church came along.

    1. Re:Who you calling a cult? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Now, that being said, imagine for a moment. It's circa 500 A.D., and the old man across the street gathers all the children around to listen to him tell the tale of a guy they tortured and nailed to a cross who died and then came back to life 3 days later to wash away all your sins.

      In the future Star Wars will be a historical documentary.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    2. Re:Who you calling a cult? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Actually, by 500 AD, Christianity was the official religion in Western Europe and the Mediterranean. Your analogy works better at 100 AD. When most educated people actually did look at Christianity as a superstitious cult.

      Which was just a measure of the prejudices of the time. And that tells us that "cult" is kind of a useless label. It's just a convenient way to dismiss the beliefs of people we don't want to make the effort to understand. That's especially a mistake with Scientology, which is quite capable of being despised on its own terms!

  102. In soviet Russia... by willworkforbeer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...they envy the ruthless tactics of Scientology

    Too bad Scientology is not bound by the Third Geneva Convention with respect to its prisoners of war, um... "followers".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  103. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the next data you want is physically next on the platter, it'll be waiting for you in the cache.

  104. Heh by ZekoMal · · Score: 1
    Imagine if someone went Robin Hood style and robbed the Scientology bank, then gave it all to charities. We could probably save a few hundred, if not thousands of lives with the money being dumped into that farce.

    It amuses me that their only means to recruit people, is to force them to join by making it mandatory to learn about it.

    Of course, their other method is sinister, in which they take desperate and depressed people, and bring them in with promises to heal their pain (sort of the same as Jesus 'love bombs', except without thousands of years of support and indoctrination).

    It's nice and all that we have freedom of speech and religion, but come on. There should be at least an attempt to stop this. Make laws that forbid people from donating more than a certain amount to a church every year (IE, they can only receive enough to keep their buildings maintained every year). It just sickens me how this bullshit can thrive around stupidity like this.

    1. Re:Heh by HexaByte · · Score: 1

      It's nice and all that we have freedom of speech and religion, but come on. There should be at least an attempt to stop this. Make laws that forbid people from donating more than a certain amount to a church every year (IE, they can only receive enough to keep their buildings maintained every year).

      Wow! How enlightened, let's have freedom of religion, but only very limited amounts. Since it's in the same First Amendment (US Constitution), lets limit the right to petition for a redress of grievances. You only get one. If they don't listen, just shut up and sit down. Free speech? Hey we've already heard your viewpoint once, you can't talk again.

      You can't right wrongs by reducing other people's rights. (TM)

      --
      HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
    2. Re:Heh by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You can't right wrongs by reducing other people's rights. (TM)

      True. But you could use those same rights to find a Church of Xenu and explain that you don't literally worship Xenu, but that he represents your megalomaniacal space-villainy side. That would be epic trolling, if nothing else ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  105. Lolcat knows all by David+Gerard · · Score: 1
    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  106. contact Diskeeper by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    http://www.diskeeper.com/contact/contact.aspx If you want to email anyone from diskeeper, here is the link.

  107. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Steve, Larry, Al, all you guys, sorry, it's off. To be honest it was on the rocks when you took away my firewire port, it made it difficult for us to fit together, but this news about corporate marriage really does end it."

  108. Re:Freedoms of religion and association by michaelmalak · · Score: 0

    Federal employment law does not apply to companies with fewer than 15 employees. I'm suggesting that that one-size-fits-all number is too low for Southern California, and that Diskeeper, with 103 employees, should also not be subject to federal employment law.

  109. Claiming first amendment is dumb here by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

    A smarter defense, that might actually stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning, would be to run with the context of the Scientology content of this training.

    Their argument basically should be "Yes, we used some content from and inspired by Scientology in developing this training material. However, we did not teach the religious content of Scientology, only management and study techniques that are equally applicable to secular life"...

    That might actually work.

  110. Re:Freedoms of religion and association by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    The 15 employee limit is the MIMINUM standard under federal law.

    States are free to set lower limits. The state I live in has no lower limit. Since this is being tried under California law the limit is 5 employees.

    In the US some one-third of all employees work for companies with less than 100 employees. Your suggestion that the limit be raised to 100 would exempt a large percentage of the US workforce from laws protecting them against workplace discrimination.

    Some professions are practiced almost exclusively in small companies.

    Very bad idea.

    Here is the source for the employee size statistics:

    http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html

  111. Re:California is a at will state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good to know, that means I won't have to hire Blacks, cripples or homosexuals either.
    Oh wait, that's not how it really works now is it?

    If your company is 5 employees or less (15 in other states), you can discriminate as much as you want, without been penalized by the state. Learned in an HR class from LA's DA. (It was 8 years ago.)

  112. All companies do that by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 1

    In other companies it's called MBTI profile, personal developement plan. There they call it Dianetics. What's the difference ?

  113. Re:California is a at will state by bsmoor01 · · Score: 1

    Isn't religion a choice? Being a certain skin color is not. I doubt most handicapped persons chose their condition, either.

    Being straight or gay is maybe a choice (I'm uncertain whether any genes have been specifically IDed yet.).

    There's a big difference between *choosing* a path in life and being born into one. It's perfectly fine to discriminate against people for choices they make. It's not ok to discriminate based on their lot in life.

    I'm saying that as a pretty liberal guy, too. I just don't like legislation forcing me to accept some people's choices. If they choose, they can deal with the consequences.

  114. Scientology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

    This is the First Amendment. Which part of it gives a company the right to religous instruction?

  115. Let's give it a fair chance by billcopc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Full disclosure: I am anti-Scientology, and generally anti-religion. If your imaginary friend is easily offended, maybe you should scroll past my humble paragraphs.

    I've noticed many of the Scientology defenders cite the religion as helping with some challenge in their life, most often drug addiction, adultery or gambling. I don't know the method by which this assistance is administered, but I would say it is a good thing. What's not so good is how they turn around and bash psychology for essentially doing the same thing for less money.

    The big problem is that this "help" is the value-add in their business model. They put a band-aid on your pathetic self-control issues, then sell you a religion before the buzz wears off, and they seem to pitch it so well that their converts truly believe it to be the "One True Way", and that everyone else is wrong and stupid... you know, like every other religion.

    What the Diskeeper guy could/should be doing, rather than illegally coercing everyone to join in his quackery, is condense the relevant "teachings" he considers essential to his business into formal documentation, be it a management book or 1-2-3 day training seminar. If he wants to be another Cruise/Travolta trainwreck, that's his choice to make, but to force others down the same path is vile and short-sighted.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
    1. Re:Let's give it a fair chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an atheist. On Slashdot. Deal. With. It. Heh. That'll show those other atheists who's boss. -billcopc, the big gay baby

  116. Re:Scientology? Ya think? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    I'd check Norton Systemworks since it comes with Norton Unerase wizard and Norton protected recycle bin. There are 3 editions of it, I couldn't find which edition has it (or all?).

  117. My novel legal theory by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    Here's my novel legal theory: if you don't like it, quit. If you're a longstanding employee who suddenly was told he had to start taking religious classes, then you might have a case, because that wasn't part of your employment agreement. But if you're a new employee, then quit. Just quit. You lost a couple of days in your job search over this red herring, but that's all.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    1. Re:My novel legal theory by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      Here's my novel legal theory: if you don't like it, quit.

      Hear hear! I'm sick of all the complainers around here. If your job tries to force you into a religion, just up and leave. And if you don't like that companies are allowed to do this sort of thing in your state, just move to another state. Same if you don't like that this is allowed in your country: just emigrate to another, more enlightened country.

      What? You live in a country that wrongfully imprisoned you on trumped up charges? Don't like prison? Just slit your throat. And stop being such a whiner.

    2. Re:My novel legal theory by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      What? You live in a country that wrongfully imprisoned you on trumped up charges? Don't like prison? Just slit your throat. And stop being such a whiner.

      Your employer cannot imprison you. No really, they can't. The only power your employer has over you, the ONLY power, is terminating your voluntary association. Yeah, it sucks getting fired. But it sucks breaking up too, but I don't see too many people lobbying to pass laws requiring girlfriends to give thirty days notice before dumping their asses.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:My novel legal theory by Tiberius_Fel · · Score: 1

      But it sucks breaking up too, but I don't see too many people lobbying to pass laws requiring girlfriends to give thirty days notice before dumping their asses.

      You're right, but then again, your job is ostensibly what you do in order to make money in order to have a place to live and food to eat. Possibly for your family, too. If I split with my girlfriend, I don't have to find another in a very short period of time in order to continue eating, having a home, et cetera.

      (Yes, I know this ignores the case of someone living with his girlfriend and depending on her to support him. I'm not sure what you can do about this kind of scenario, but it is VERY different from a hardworking person suddenly fired from his job with a wife, children, and possibly elderly parents to support.)

      --
      Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
  118. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    A firm is nothing more than a group of individual people associating together. Those individuals have the right of association (and non-association). While certain forms of association may be immoral, should they also be illegal? It's a very slippery slope when we let government have the power to choose who you may or may not associate with.

    The best solution when you are confronted with a firm that discriminates, is to simply not associate with them. If they piss you off enough, then go ahead and organize a boycott and picket. But getting the government involved will always lead to unintended consequences.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  119. Re:JkDefrag: Better, free, open source, and no cul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hilarious! The troll didn't understand the post it responded to.

    Funny! :-) (Perhaps not in the way you intended, but still funny.)

  120. Proof Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't really prove god(s) exist(s) and neither that it(he/she/they...) do not.

    Do you have any proof of that? I think a sufficiently powerful God could prove its existence very easily. Your statement sounds bogus to me, so I can't wait to see your proof. And if you can't prove it then what makes agnostics any better than atheists?

  121. Free speech vs mandatory teachings by proton · · Score: 1

    They might actually have a case with being free to teach COS stuff at work.

    But they are entirely fucked if they force their workers to attend?

    Atleast thats my impression..

  122. Glad I got it from a warez site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This makes me really glad I grabbed Diskeeper off a warez site a while back.
    No money from me.

  123. Terrorists by dosun88888 · · Score: 1

    I don't see how the release of the body thetans (criminals from another world) could qualify as anything but terrorism, so all members should be tried as such and sent to gitmo.

    I once worked at a Scientology company, and well, it was pretty entertaining. After a few months with me the "trainer" on staff had some new shiny books on his shelf about dealing with SPs. I do recall the staring contests being entertaining (I can still stare like a champion), and it was awesome when someone caught a cold. People would swarm them wondering what it was that they didn't understand (sneezes are evidence to them of a misunderstanding - I shit you not).

    To be honest, I harbor no ill will toward any of the individuals that I came into contact with, and I was not fired when I chose to spend my hour a day of training time writing essays about how absurd the whole thing was. I was actually one of the last employees there before they closed up shop.

  124. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

    Walt Disney?

  125. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by dghcasp · · Score: 1

    Hold on... Are you telling me that corporations can't get married?

    Corporations can get married, just not in states with "defense of marriage" laws, because it's impossible to prove they're of opposite genders.

  126. Dont work there by ironicsky · · Score: 1

    If you dont like the conditions of a job, dont work for the company. its that simple.
    You do not have a right to work for a company just because you want too.
    Its the employers right to hire who they want and pose specific restrictions on the job, and requirements to hold that job.

    While I don't agree that religion belongs in the work place, thats the employers choice. Deal with it, or work for a company that makes useful products instead

    1. Re:Dont work there by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I heard this argument before, from someone at a party - perhaps it was you ?

      Anyhow - it's a lousy approach. The bargaining power is far too lopsided against the employee.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    2. Re:Dont work there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, fire all niggers, kikes, and spics. Also all women, they aren't good for anything.

      Are you seriously arguing that anyone can be fired for anything and that it's ok?

  127. Moral: by dghcasp · · Score: 1

    The moral of this story is that if, in an interview, you're asked "have you ever enslaved a civilization?", you probably don't want to work there, regardless of whether or not they're affiliated with scientology.

    Of course, unless they're game developers or recruiting Bond villains.

  128. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by EdIII · · Score: 1

    Well, I agree with you to a point. We DONT want the government saying who we can and can not associate with.

    However, employment is one of those areas we really do want no discrimination based on our religions, race, sex, age, etc. I think it's pretty simple. If you are hiring, have an interview, or pay a W-2, then you ARE AN EMPLOYER.

    If you employ people, then you may not discriminate based on religion.

    Obviously, the KKK is very particular about who they let join. It's wrong, but not illegal. Then again, they are not paying out W-2's. Well as AFAIK.

  129. Oblig. Boston Legal by Sentry21 · · Score: 1
  130. Bullshit by GuloGulo · · Score: 1

    "Since this was in a "right to work" state I had little recourse "

    No.

    You're wrong, you had a very actionable case for religious discrimination, which is definitely a cause for suit, EVEN IN RIGHT TO WORK STATES. If it was as you describe, you had at least a shot at a settlement, and many attorneys would take such a case on contingency, so even the excuse that you couldn't afford top sue fails.

    That makes me think the situation isn't as you describe, and you are making shit up after the fact.

    --
    "The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
  131. Learn to read, you'll avboid looking like an idiot by GuloGulo · · Score: 1

    "When it came time for lay-off's, guess who was let go, the director and myself. Eventually the director was re-hired as a consultant. I decided to burn that bridge and when packing my personal effects I threw a notepad at the vice president and told him in a long tirade to get fuxed. Also, I refused to provide any future assistance when they called me later to figure out how to proceed on some of the projects I was working on."

    Have someone smarter than you read that and explain why your claims are moronic.

    Hint: your claim of "Knowing neither person" isn't appropriate.

    You must feel like a fucking imbecile for defending someone for behavior they admitted to, and if you don't, it's because you're too fucking dumb to realize you should.

    --
    "The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
  132. Re:JkDefrag: Better, free, open source, and no cul by gemtech · · Score: 2, Insightful

    would you expect promotion from a $cientology-based organization to include anything but non-fact based opinion?

    --
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
  133. Re:Learn to read, you'll avboid looking like an id by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


    The person who threw the notebook had just had their job taken from them whist those less deserving kept theirs, for the not sharing his employer's religious beliefs. I would consider on the balance of wrongs done to each other, that outweighs throwing a notebook and spouting off by several orders of magnitude. One might even consider throwing a notebook (not generally the most dangerous of objects) and some verbal abuse a pretty mild response to an action that probably caused significant life upheaval and financial loss. I wasn't there, the poster I was replying to wasn't there. But a pretty bold statement was made by that poster nonetheless.

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  134. Not "establishing" -- "respecting an establisment" by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Sorry to be pedantic here, but your post slightly misses the mark. Here's the Constitutional quote first:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

    Your own writing, however, missed this key "respecting" word:

    Giving tax breaks to religions that fit the official definition thereof neither establishes nor infringes.

    The problem is that the Constitutional quote you use does not discuess establishing a religion, but rather respecting an establishment of religion. Giving tax breaks to a religious group would indeed seem to fall into the "respecting an establishment of religion" category, which is why many folks aren't terribly happy about it.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  135. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    But why should businesses be different? Sure you get a paycheck, but it's still a voluntary association. Nobody forced you to go work for your current employer.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  136. It's Deeper Than You Think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else get the banner ad for Tom Cruise's new movie "Valkyrie" when opening the comments page?

    The Scientologists have infiltrated Slashdot!

    There is no sanctuary left! Run for your lives!!

  137. Re:What the heck? ;-) by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

    I'm a Mormon. What's likely to happen is something like this:

    Your Mormon boss comes in late to work one day and says, "sorry I missed our meeting this morning; I forgot we had to drive down to Provo to take my son to the MTC."

    You give him a strange look, but it's your boss so you want to be understanding. "MTC? What's that?"

    Then your boss cringes, big-time. He remembers last week when you ordered a beer at the team lunch. He thinks, "crud, I'm an idiot and just assumed this polite, new employee was a Mormon. How I play this may determine what sort of lawsuit comes up against the company." Your boss may have just moved up the ladder from a job at a place where everyone was Mormon, and he just forgot that this time things could be different.

    It really could be anything that gives you away. Perhaps your resume says you went to school at Notre Dame or Pepperdine or you ask a co-worker what that big white building is doing on the side of the hill and why it's always closed on Sundays. You're not a Roman, and you don't know Rome yet. So how could you possibly expect to do as the Romans and not give yourself away?

    I expect most Mormons will bend over backwards to accomodate you and whatever beliefs you do and don't hold. I did that for several non-LDS co-workers of mine when I worked in Utah. We became really good friends. The problem is, you're moving to Mormon HQ. You're going to meet half-in, half-out Mormons, Mormons by marriage, dedicated 24/7 Mormons, ex-con Mormons, Mormons who drink and smoke, Mormons who think you would be the best next member of our church, and even Mormons who mismanage their company. They're just people. Look for good _people_ and try associate with them, especially if you're looking for work.

    Right now I live in California, in a hugely non-religious area, and I've probably been discriminated against many times on the basis of my religion. My resume practically screams Mormon. I've gotten so I can easily detect people tiptoeing around those points and some have dropped hints that they don't understand why a Mormon would want to work around drinkers, drug users, etc. because they certainly wouldn't be comfortable around a Mormon.

    I'm not the type to jump at suing people for discrimination, but I've had many opportunities to do so if I wished. In each case I decided that I would probably hate the job anyway, so I moved on. You may have to make your own decision about this. Good luck! Hope you find yourself in a good job with good people.

  138. Re:Wow; revinventing history... by lpq · · Score: 1

    Of course SGI found out about this about 15-20 years ago, and included a defragmenter with their XFS file system for pathological cases. Normally, their XFS file system resists fragmentation by using delayed allocation, but with multiple I/O streams going to disk, its unavoidable.

  139. Interesting juxtaposition by wowen · · Score: 1

    I got this story with an ad for the church of Scientology... Hmmm. http://wendingourway.com/imagesforsa2/scientology.jpg

  140. How much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much would your wager ?

  141. Re:Discrminiation. Period. by dword · · Score: 1

    Religious preferences, or training has nothing at all to do with the ability to program software. So it's not like some big hairy dude getting mad since the strip club won't let him on the pole.

    Well.... sometimes it does. I used to work at a place where they hired this guy that would stop working before the sun set on Fridays and would only begin working after the sun rise on Mondays. In this part of the world, the sun sets way before the end of our schedule in winter - we leave at 6 PM and the sun sets shortly after 4 PM. So this guy was getting two hours off every Friday, just because of his religious beliefs and over here, you negotiate your monthly salary, not hourly and even if it was hourly, I always had to work 40 hours a week while this guy got away with a few hours. Even 5 hours a week is still plenty to mess up everything, because we worked as a team and we all had to check in at the same time and work during the same period, so we could coordinate ourselves. Of course, this guy didn't "have" to, because his "religion" forbid him from working after dark on Fridays and before light on Mondays.

    I wonder if his god could spare a few moments to talk my god into that.

    Furthermore, if you're messy, your code is most likely messy. If you're always careful with what you're doing, your code will probably have less bugs. If you like avoiding work, you'll just hack everything up to make the testcases work and put it into production. Your code is what you are. If you have deep beliefs in your religion and your religion forbids you from looking at what's going on around you, you're probably stubborn and closed to new ideas which means working with you will be a bit difficult. Religion can interfere with the way you (yes, I mean you, the reader) develop software. Let's face it, if you were a convinced christian, you wouldn't support OSS so much, would you? You'd just do what your boss told you and you'd know that Microsoft will one day burn in hell. Amen!

  142. Re:California is a at will state by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I can't start believing in a deity no matter how hard I try. And it would be dishonest to pretend I can just turn faith on like a switch.

    Of course if I run a small private company I think I should be able to require applicants to adhere to my belief system, but to be fair about it I think I should be up front and explain the situation before hiring them. If someone wants to have a small private business that only hires roman Catholics or orthodox Jews, then I certainly have no ethical problems with that.

    If you're a publicly traded company, with shares traded on the open market and a board. Well you ought to have far less freedom in how you choose to manage your staff.

    Of course my personal feelings on this issue have absolutely no legal source. And as far as I can tell requiring someone to join your religion to remain employed violates the law, even in in an at-will state like California, where no contract is implied.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  143. Re:California is a at will state by bsmoor01 · · Score: 1

    Fellow godless here. Not something I openly advertise to certain folks, though. I'm careful specifically because of religious bias in the area I live (Kentucky).

    As for legality, you may be correct. I just remembered that Kentucky passed a law in recent years that specifically *allows* religious organizations to discriminate. It all came about because of Camp Quest, a secular/skeptic camp for kids that was started here in Kentucky. More here: http://www.edwinkagin.com/documents/bullittsburg/

    Yay Kentucky.

  144. I hope someone tries that with me one day by RexDevious · · Score: 1

    I'm not one of those "stand on principle" kind of guys. If someone wants to force me into joining their religion, I'm more than happy to do it... in a way that makes them wish they'd never even mentioned it to me.

    The trick is to *gradually* go from simply hearing about their beliefs, to spending the entire work day doing nothing but praying loudly about literally everything in your immediate field of vision, speaking in "tongues" during conference calls, adding new rules to the religion that you insist everyone follow, and generally just giving the religion a bad name by following it far more fanatically than the person who introduced you to it.

    Another fun thing you can do these days is take advantage of the new law passed by still President Bush which says you don't have to do anything at work which violates your religious beliefs. He did this so that Evangelicals wouldn't have to perform abortions or distribute birth control, but had to make the wording broad enough to cover *any* religion. Like, if you work at a hospital and Dick Cheney comes in with yet another heart attack, you can claim you're a Christian Scientist: "I need 50 cc's of holy water and prayer circle, stat!". Or if you work at a technology firm, you can say you're Amish and refuse to use anything which uses electricity.

    Really, there's nothing quite a fun as joining a religion you think is bizarre in a country that lets you do damn near anything as long as you say God told you to.

  145. Re:California is a at will state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why wouldn't you want to hire homo's? Blacks and cripples, yeah, I can see that.

  146. Not open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may be able to inspect the 'source code' of most of the religions, but in most cases the resulting 'binaries' are not compiled from source!

    What percentage of Christians have even read the whole bible? And how many of those actually follow all the 'interesting' teachings found in the Old Testament? And if you actually followed ALL those teachings, would you still be accepted in the society?

    The truth is that most believers get their 'binaries' directly from priests / parents / etc and those binaries are already pretty heavily modified.

    Is this really still open source?

    1. Re:Not open source by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Well, actually they get code snippets and compiler directives.

      The Cathechism of the Catholic Church is, among other things, a set of rules how to interpret the Bible. Now, you do not have to read the whole Bible, but applying those compiler directives to the source text, you should be able to get the same results, i.e. opinions. Similarly, I do not tend to read the source code to the open source programs I compile because it's all Greek to me. But if I wanted to, I could.

      So no, no-one really follows any religion to the letter, but their source texts are still completely open. Unlike CoS, whose texts are... restricted.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  147. Re:JkDefrag: Better, free, open source, and no cul by flyneye · · Score: 0, Troll

    In my opinion Scientology is probably WHY Windows needs defraged in the first place.It has something to do with an audit and Xenu removing bits and bytes to be hid under a volcano.It could be a mental health issue,but since Tom Cruise knows everything about mental health care,they've opted for a cleansing defrag.
              Incedentally there is an ad at the top of this slashdot page offering to show me "the facts" on $cientology,as told by the scientologists rather than an unbiased party who actually is posessed of mental health.
            There is a reason my Debian64 lives on and on on this drive while I have to purge and reinstall XP every 6 months or so.That reason is L.Ron Hubbard,native Wichitan,burger flipper and failed writer.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  148. One of Diskeeper's purpose is to recruit by MrHill · · Score: 1

    Some extra information about World Institute of Scientology Enterprises ("WISE"), organization to which Craig Jensen's Diskeeper belongs:

    According to the Church of Scientology, WISE is part of "Div 6" (Division 6).

    According to Church of Scientology's own statement to the IRS in 1993, "Div 6" is "responsible for attracting new Scientologists".

    Evidences

  149. Koolaid Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No Kidding, diskeeper is most likely based on alien technology that can be used to take over the planet at some point. Or they will all drink some spiked [Koolaid] and go up in the mothership leaving us with no technical support.

  150. I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does the drummer from the Muppets and him tag teaming his former wife with hair clippers have to do with anything?

  151. Re:What the heck? ;-) by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

    Then your boss cringes, big-time. He remembers last week when you ordered a beer at the team lunch. He thinks, "crud, I'm an idiot and just assumed this polite, new employee was a Mormon. How I play this may determine what sort of lawsuit comes up against the company." Your boss may have just moved up the ladder from a job at a place where everyone was Mormon, and he just forgot that this time things could be different.

    Um, why wouldn't he (the boss) just answer the question? "Oh, it's a Mormon thing, we go to blah blah blah whatever". I'm not aware of any labor laws that forbid any and all mention of religion, they forbid discriminatory behaviour and harassment based on religious preference. If Bob Christianson in accounting tells his cube-mate Moishe Goldbaum about the nice choir at Christmas Mass he is not violating either of these tenets (unless of course Moishe has asked him not to).

    --
    Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
  152. Re:California is a at will state by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry your experience with Christians has been so negative. The particular sects of Christianity I had to deal with growing up as a nontheist tended to be against the government making any religious decisions. Some Christian groups are very strongly for the separation of church and state, perhaps because they are often a minority sect and don't like it when the community tries to roll over their beliefs.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  153. c:\windows\system32\defrag.exe c: /f by concolor22 · · Score: 1

    Set as scheduled task with an admin acct, done and done. At least well enough for most users.... considering most never defrag at all. Or for the Vista croud (which I assumeis thin in these here partz) defrag c: -v -w

  154. Re:Not "establishing" -- "respecting an establisme by GospelHead821 · · Score: 1

    I could be wrong, but I see "no law respecting an establishment of religion" as being synonymous with "no law pertaining to the establishment of religion." You're obviously reading "establishment of religion" to be synonymous with "religious institution." It's a reasonable interpretation and I can understand your point of view.

    --
    Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
    Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
  155. Re:Not "establishing" -- "respecting an establisme by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Fair enough, thank you for the thoughtful reply, and for explaining your viewpoint. You're correct about my interpretation, and now that I better understand your reading of the text, I wonder which one was intended? More matter for a May morning...

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  156. Zealots, of whatever stripe... by A+New+Normalcy · · Score: 1

    ... really scare me. As do vibrating chihuahuas.

    --
    ...Lorenzo / I'm into kinky crustaceans. I just discovered internet praWn.
  157. An S corp wedding an LLC is OK by A+New+Normalcy · · Score: 1

    ... last I heard.

    --
    ...Lorenzo / I'm into kinky crustaceans. I just discovered internet praWn.
  158. Awright, my hot button: by A+New+Normalcy · · Score: 1

    around the third/fourth grade I began omitting the word 'God' from the (US) Pledge of Allegiance. I felt it had no damn business there, and still do. And I remain a patriot. And support strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America. Now the (off-topic) flamebait: Explain to me the difference between John Ashcroft and the Taliban members. After all, he used a specious constitutional argument to force his religious views against Oregon's right-to-die law. Religious freedom AND states rights; shot to hell.

    --
    ...Lorenzo / I'm into kinky crustaceans. I just discovered internet praWn.
  159. Re:Kool-Aid Re:Wow by PalmKiller · · Score: 1

    Um yea thanks AC, The misspelling of Kool-Aid was actually intentional but I suspect yours was not, please note the correct spelling and hyphenation :).

  160. So you are stupid. by GuloGulo · · Score: 1

    "The person who threw the notebook had just had their job taken from them whist those less deserving kept theirs, for the not sharing his employer's religious beliefs. I would consider on the balance of wrongs done to each other, that outweighs throwing a notebook and spouting off by several orders of magnitude. One might even consider throwing a notebook (not generally the most dangerous of objects) and some verbal abuse a pretty mild response to an action that probably caused significant life upheaval and financial loss. I wasn't there, the poster I was replying to wasn't there. But a pretty bold statement was made by that poster nonetheless."

    Nothing you posted shows she wasn't a BITCH.

    So, your entire post was a waste, you're still wrong, and now you look pathetic for making stupid arguments that don't even address the point in question.

    Nice try though, and by nice try I mean, you're incredibly fucking stupid.

    --
    "The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
    1. Re:So you are stupid. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Nothing you posted shows she wasn't a BITCH.

      If you read my post, you'll see that I was castigating the person who said she was a bitch (amongst other things) for making assumptions without any evidence. And your criticism of me is that I should be making assumptions? Rather a flawed criticism.

      So, your entire post was a waste, you're still wrong, and now you look pathetic for making stupid arguments that don't even address the point in question.

      You've just demonstrated a fundamental lack of awareness of what the point in question is, so I'll not be too bothered if you think I don't address it. Also, chill.

      Nice try though, and by nice try I mean, you're incredibly fucking stupid.

      I'm sorry you feel that way.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  161. Worked there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shortly after moving to California I was hired with another company in the same building as Diskeeper. I had never scene anything like what I would see the year that I worked for this company. Anyone who was hired with this company was REQUIRED to take additional "training" on top of working there regular eight hour day. Of course this "training" was Scientology teaching or based off of it. Employees would have to read books and testimonials by who else then Mr. Hubbard himself. Also anyone that I met that was on the higher end of the company where serious Scientoligist's and had been for year's. It was pretty clear that no matter how good of a employee you where, unless you where part of there cult (Don't be confused it is a cult) you had no chance at reaching a higher position within the company. There where many other nasty little secrets going on within the company but that was the most obviously WRONG practice that I witnessed... lol But a few other things where... I wasn't aloud to listen to a local radio station (Kroq 106.7) because the morning show hosts (What it do Kevin,Bean,Lisa May and the rest of the morning show) Would sometimes talk about there... let's just say negative experiences with The Scientology community, after a supervisor from the Diskeeper Co. heard some of there remarks I was BANNED from listing to KROQ all together although other employees and myself were more then welcome to listen to other radio stations!!! You could also tell that they would seek out and recruit new employees that where young, and obviously easily influenced and looking for meaning and financial security. The higher up's even going so far as to coxing some young employees to attend Hubbard College a Scientology based "School". I hope the two guys win and win big!! The motto that if you don't like how things are where you work get a new job, just isn't right.