Right here:
http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=306827
Having read it, it looks like something I know many of my HS students would have written, meaning nothing and probably provoking the same reaction. This is a harmless, rational guy with nothing wrong with him other than a lack of sense in actually turning this in. My two cents.
Just a note: while security is one of the stated reasons, chances are what he means is the "security" of stable apps with a service contract. The reason he's looking at Google rather than OpenOffice or any of the other -- probably more secure from your viewpoint -- options is because of that pretty little "24x7 support" Google offers for a mere 50 per head per year. From a simple business standpoint, Google is a reliable company offering a low-cost, little training needed alternative to Office with full support. Microsoft can't offer a comparable price including support contracts, and other options either don't have dependable support (remember that forums are not an option for busy business people who don't want to sift through information and "play" with things to make them work) or are too little known (again, in the business world at least) to be considered dependable themselves.
No one wants to be stuck with an option that might go up in smoke. That's probably the security he's more concerned with.
I worked for a PHB a year ago who believed that she knew everything there was to know about computers, or at least more than me, despite not being able (literally) to tell the difference between a modem and a NIC.
When I was brought in as Network Admin, I was told that my first major job was to figure out "why the servers crashed so often". Not the best sign. I was then shown the server room. It was the furnace room, a tiny closet with no windows or a/c, piled high with every type of non-computer related trash (as in plastic wrappers and empty boxes, old food containers, empty coke cans etc) and 8 "servers" (some were Compaq ancient desktops, the ones used for the backup systems of course) running NT (a few were 2000) squashed together on tables. There was a server rack, but most of the servers didn't fit on it. On the ceiling a box fan had been hooked to the drop ceiling with coat hangers. As the cord did not reach the outlet, it was plugged into a power strip that hung in midair. The door to this room was always closed and locked tight.
The temp was regularly between 90-110 degrees. At least one server crashed every day. She asked me to get it down to once a week, thinking this was normal. I did a full report for her on what needed to be done, including actually creating a backup system that worked (they weren't actually backing up user data at the time, only the windows installations on the two least essential servers, on the same tape once a week which was never checked). She read it, decided that first we needed to be "more organized" and spend the entire budget on a new rack. When it arrived, it was discovered that, just like the old one, none of the servers actually worked with it. So, she begged *additional* money to buy new rails etc. Two of the servers *still* did not fit, so the tables stayed. She even told me that the trash needed to stay because she needed to "sort through it" and there was nowhere else to put it.
Incidently, when the CEO's computer crashed and he discovered that his data was not being backed up, my PHB blamed me, and the CEO *believed* her. I was officially reprimanded, and my protests ignored. This is just the first story of many, but let me sum up to say that at one point I actually requested an audience with the CEO (I was the Sr. Network Admin by that time (read: "only") but she was CIO) to talk about the problems with the network, how it could be fixed and why the CIO was frankly lying to him to cover her own ass. (I said it much more politely.) I was told that if I had a problem with her, I needed to change my mind or leave.
I'm a lurker who just had to say something here. Bring up anything about Christians and there's automatically a lot of feelings that people have either for or against, regardless of what the article is actually about. Fine. Have your opinion, but don't flame the other side just for not agreeing with you, you're just hurting your point. "If you buy this game you're going to hell!" is just as bad as "Christians are idiots and no one with a brain would believe what they say they do." I believe in free speech and will defend your right to flame away, sure. Just be aware that you're not helping your case and tend to just sound hypocritical.
So, if anyone cares, here's my hopefully rational take on TFA: First, Walmart can and should sell the game if they feel it's a good business decision. Walmart has never claimed to be a "Christian" or for that matter "Muslim" organization and as such should not have to agree with organizations which do claim those affiliations. The only reason they should take it off their shelves is if they feel they can't sell it.
Second, those Christian organizations which are upset about the game also have every right to express that opinion, and should do so if that's what they believe is in line with their beliefs. Free speech is still relevant even when the opinions expressed seem ridiculous to another group of people. Period.
Third, the game is not actually a "Convert or Die", that's just a blown up opinion that sounds scary enough to talk about. The writers are very clear that killing is wrong in the game and will hurt your chances of winning, not help them. While you can use weapons, they are meant in defense if you're playing the Christian side. Not so with the Anti-christ side, which are clearly meant to show that "only bad guys kill people". The goal of the game is to convert, certainly, but not as a crusade or inquisition. What you have to realize is that in this version of Christian end time theology, literally anyone who does not believe in Jesus as God by the time Earth's "timer" runs out, will be doomed to an eternity without God, a horrible unthinkable thought. These Christians are trying to save people in what is to them a very real danger, and the game is meant to reflect that, not a convert at gunpoint mentality.
I'm not saying that this game is doing a great job at showing it, but that is the thought behind the process. Way, way behind, as the "game" concept seems to be overshadowing the "Christian" concept here quite a bit, and I think that's what's causing most of the trouble.
Fourth, about the non-PC elements of the game, the "Muslim sounding names" etc: well, it is trying to tell the story related in the Left Behind series, in which much of the action takes place in the Middle East. In the book, as in the Christian belief, there are people from that area of the world on BOTH sides. And the main villain is, as I recall, Romanian. However, the game seems to be focusing on the main characters, who happen to be American...mostly. (There are several very prominent characters on the Christian side who are from various other countries, though it's not clear how featured they are in the game.) If this really is a racial split, than I'm disappointed but I can't comment on it since we really don't know yet. So I'd advise a hold fire on that for a second.
As to Muslims not being allowed on the Christian side (and here I'm talking about religion, not race) it makes sense that if you don't believe that this end time view is going to happen, then you are not qualified to be on the Christian side if it did happen, right? Stop complaining about this point, it's not anti-tolerant, it's just a realistic viewpoint saying that if this end time happens, the only ones expecting it will be the ones who believe it will happen.
And for the Anti-christ side not being able to win: this is again a conflict between the "game" and "Christian" ideas that this company is trying to put together. True, it might make a better game for the other side to be able to win (and technical
Slashdot Mirror
Right here: http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=306827 Having read it, it looks like something I know many of my HS students would have written, meaning nothing and probably provoking the same reaction. This is a harmless, rational guy with nothing wrong with him other than a lack of sense in actually turning this in. My two cents.
Just a note: while security is one of the stated reasons, chances are what he means is the "security" of stable apps with a service contract. The reason he's looking at Google rather than OpenOffice or any of the other -- probably more secure from your viewpoint -- options is because of that pretty little "24x7 support" Google offers for a mere 50 per head per year. From a simple business standpoint, Google is a reliable company offering a low-cost, little training needed alternative to Office with full support. Microsoft can't offer a comparable price including support contracts, and other options either don't have dependable support (remember that forums are not an option for busy business people who don't want to sift through information and "play" with things to make them work) or are too little known (again, in the business world at least) to be considered dependable themselves.
No one wants to be stuck with an option that might go up in smoke. That's probably the security he's more concerned with.
Actually, Google does host sites via Googlepages. Granted, it's still in beta, but then so (still) is Gmail...
Oh where to start...
I worked for a PHB a year ago who believed that she knew everything there was to know about computers, or at least more than me, despite not being able (literally) to tell the difference between a modem and a NIC.
When I was brought in as Network Admin, I was told that my first major job was to figure out "why the servers crashed so often". Not the best sign. I was then shown the server room. It was the furnace room, a tiny closet with no windows or a/c, piled high with every type of non-computer related trash (as in plastic wrappers and empty boxes, old food containers, empty coke cans etc) and 8 "servers" (some were Compaq ancient desktops, the ones used for the backup systems of course) running NT (a few were 2000) squashed together on tables. There was a server rack, but most of the servers didn't fit on it. On the ceiling a box fan had been hooked to the drop ceiling with coat hangers. As the cord did not reach the outlet, it was plugged into a power strip that hung in midair. The door to this room was always closed and locked tight.
The temp was regularly between 90-110 degrees. At least one server crashed every day. She asked me to get it down to once a week, thinking this was normal. I did a full report for her on what needed to be done, including actually creating a backup system that worked (they weren't actually backing up user data at the time, only the windows installations on the two least essential servers, on the same tape once a week which was never checked). She read it, decided that first we needed to be "more organized" and spend the entire budget on a new rack. When it arrived, it was discovered that, just like the old one, none of the servers actually worked with it. So, she begged *additional* money to buy new rails etc. Two of the servers *still* did not fit, so the tables stayed. She even told me that the trash needed to stay because she needed to "sort through it" and there was nowhere else to put it.
Incidently, when the CEO's computer crashed and he discovered that his data was not being backed up, my PHB blamed me, and the CEO *believed* her. I was officially reprimanded, and my protests ignored. This is just the first story of many, but let me sum up to say that at one point I actually requested an audience with the CEO (I was the Sr. Network Admin by that time (read: "only") but she was CIO) to talk about the problems with the network, how it could be fixed and why the CIO was frankly lying to him to cover her own ass. (I said it much more politely.) I was told that if I had a problem with her, I needed to change my mind or leave.
I got out of there as quickly as I could.
I'm a lurker who just had to say something here. Bring up anything about Christians and there's automatically a lot of feelings that people have either for or against, regardless of what the article is actually about. Fine. Have your opinion, but don't flame the other side just for not agreeing with you, you're just hurting your point. "If you buy this game you're going to hell!" is just as bad as "Christians are idiots and no one with a brain would believe what they say they do." I believe in free speech and will defend your right to flame away, sure. Just be aware that you're not helping your case and tend to just sound hypocritical. So, if anyone cares, here's my hopefully rational take on TFA: First, Walmart can and should sell the game if they feel it's a good business decision. Walmart has never claimed to be a "Christian" or for that matter "Muslim" organization and as such should not have to agree with organizations which do claim those affiliations. The only reason they should take it off their shelves is if they feel they can't sell it. Second, those Christian organizations which are upset about the game also have every right to express that opinion, and should do so if that's what they believe is in line with their beliefs. Free speech is still relevant even when the opinions expressed seem ridiculous to another group of people. Period. Third, the game is not actually a "Convert or Die", that's just a blown up opinion that sounds scary enough to talk about. The writers are very clear that killing is wrong in the game and will hurt your chances of winning, not help them. While you can use weapons, they are meant in defense if you're playing the Christian side. Not so with the Anti-christ side, which are clearly meant to show that "only bad guys kill people". The goal of the game is to convert, certainly, but not as a crusade or inquisition. What you have to realize is that in this version of Christian end time theology, literally anyone who does not believe in Jesus as God by the time Earth's "timer" runs out, will be doomed to an eternity without God, a horrible unthinkable thought. These Christians are trying to save people in what is to them a very real danger, and the game is meant to reflect that, not a convert at gunpoint mentality. I'm not saying that this game is doing a great job at showing it, but that is the thought behind the process. Way, way behind, as the "game" concept seems to be overshadowing the "Christian" concept here quite a bit, and I think that's what's causing most of the trouble. Fourth, about the non-PC elements of the game, the "Muslim sounding names" etc: well, it is trying to tell the story related in the Left Behind series, in which much of the action takes place in the Middle East. In the book, as in the Christian belief, there are people from that area of the world on BOTH sides. And the main villain is, as I recall, Romanian. However, the game seems to be focusing on the main characters, who happen to be American...mostly. (There are several very prominent characters on the Christian side who are from various other countries, though it's not clear how featured they are in the game.) If this really is a racial split, than I'm disappointed but I can't comment on it since we really don't know yet. So I'd advise a hold fire on that for a second. As to Muslims not being allowed on the Christian side (and here I'm talking about religion, not race) it makes sense that if you don't believe that this end time view is going to happen, then you are not qualified to be on the Christian side if it did happen, right? Stop complaining about this point, it's not anti-tolerant, it's just a realistic viewpoint saying that if this end time happens, the only ones expecting it will be the ones who believe it will happen. And for the Anti-christ side not being able to win: this is again a conflict between the "game" and "Christian" ideas that this company is trying to put together. True, it might make a better game for the other side to be able to win (and technical