That's a good point. I find that people who have a real problem with Scientology either have problems with religion in general, and find Scientology an easy target, or are Christians who are don't want any distractions from the Savior's message. Notice the anti-Mormon and anti Christian posts here on this topic.
I am a Scientologist. I am because I have read and applied the information I found freely in books and other published materials of Scientology and found it to be workable and worthwhile. I am fully aware of the controversies and problems surrounding our religion. I feel profoundly for those who have been victims of either bad people and/or bad policy. And yet, I remain. Why?
Why is a Catholic a Catholic despite pedophile priests and the Inquisition? Why is an atheist an atheist despite the legacies and atrocities of Stalin, Marx, and Mao? Why is a Muslim a Muslim despite radical Islam? Why is a Baptist a Baptist despite Televangelists?
Because there is something profound and meaningful underneath all the BS that rings of Truth.
I have studied religion and biological science deeply. I found that Truth is universal. To me, Scientology helps me organize that Truth.
I would have handled the CEO about the same way, but I would have added the price-tag for a bigger pipe along with the logs... Was there any legitimate use of video, or was it all porn?;)
I invest heavily in AV, anti-spyware, patching systems, etc., to mitigate against the web. Where there is internet access, I don't care who you are, you're going to get all the ills of being next to a sewer.
But, I admit I am soft toward sales and marketing. Sure, they don't make the product, but they sell it. Nothing happens until somebody sells something. Sales is a hard job, and I am willing to put up with a bit of prima donna attitude if the guy is "bringing home the coin." Remember, these guys who are making all this money are the first to get fired when sales slump...
We support the guys making money more than those that spend it, as a rule. Hence, sales, marketing, customer service, manufacturing, shipping -- all line functions -- are supported before Finance, HR, payroll, legal, and the other staff groups. Of course, we support all well across the board, it's just that some are "more equal" than others.
Well, there has to be a balance. I have been on a number of projects where I had to research and, ultimately, dismantle non-documented, poorly written, non-integrated, home-built "solutions" that end-users built on their own. I am currently doing this now, within our own organization, where we had, for years, a controller who "didn't trust" our General Ledger package, never really learned to use it, and instead took data dumps and created all the firm's financial reports using Excel. No one could create the reports except the controller. The spreadsheets were a spider web of "=IF" functions and non-named ranges. Of course, no documentation. It also took him three days to create the reports.
I had my team build the necessary reports using the standard report writers (Balance Sheets, Income Statements, Cash Flow), and now anyone who has access and a need can run these reports in less than five minutes. We are also training the accounting team in the tools so they can create and update the reports themselves.
Now, when these Excel reports were first created, the controller was working with a different IT organization, one that was restrictive and anti-service, to your point. So, he had a need that had to be addressed. However, his Excel reports ended up being a solution to problems that no longer existed -- and he refused to change, and disbelieved that the G/L software could create a proper balance sheet (which, of course, is absurd -- G/L software that can support a public company can create standard accounting reports!).
Hence, my statement about a balance. An organization that has end-users building systems themselves outside their IT organization for mainstream apps (G/L standard reports, call centers, shipping software, broad-public web sites) shows that the IT organization is either non-responsive, or non-funded, or that the users themselves are rogues. Tools such as Excel, Access, MindManager, even VB to some extent, are great tools for local use, and IT should not get in the way.
There is that elusive dividing line between the realm of IT and the realm of the end-user. To my mind, that line is between apps that add value to the company as a whole, and apps that increase the productivity of individuals and small groups/departments. To the extent that a local app can be leveraged across the whole enterprise, IT should help sponsor and nurture it.
One should also recognize that there is "scaffolding" in the form of temporary (or not so temporary) stop-gap systems that need to be in place while the enterprise systems that are supposed to support the function are put in place. In this case, IT should not hinder the scaffolding, and the end users should not rue the dismantling of it when the time comes.
IT is one "Model T" every five years, more or less... So, one better get used to ditching the old. I myself know that 90% of what I know about IT systems is obsolete!
Having a policy of pulling down the iron curtain will hinder productivity. IT is not so clairvoyant as to know all the possible software tools there are that its organization needs to get its jobs done. Some of the best software I currently use came from someone's non-supported favorite tool-box.
IT's job is to ensure that the people who make money for the company can make money for the company. IT is a support function. Therefore, IT should ensure their customers (sales, marketing, line managers and users) have the tools they need to get the job done, increase revenue, reduce cost, within the constraints of (and despite) regulation and business prudence.
I have been on both sides -- as a developer using computers "maintained" by IT people, and as an IT manager whose job it is to ensure IT tools are available and safe, and that information is secure.
As a user (this was a while back), I invariably went "outside" the "State-approved" environment, usually by creating my own: DOS, Windows, Unix, whatever. The price of freedom was responsibility. I had to support the systems myself, since IT had no clue what I was doing. Where firewalls and other security constraints got in the way, I would handle it either by negotiation (usually I was working on a project that required some access to sensitive corporate data) or by, again, going outside - using external ISPs, services, etc. I was usually able to negotiate a modem line.
On the other side, I have set a firm "this is a company computer" policy in place, and let everyone know that we can and do see everything on their computer, including all emails and web traffic. (The real truth is that I stopped being so draconian and stopped paying for all the web monitoring tools, but they don't know that!) However, emails and other communications can be monitored. I also have various password cracking tools I use to get into, say, Excel docs when it is needed, and that is a "service" of IT. Yes, there are some things we cannot, obviously, crack, but, again, they don't know that.
What ends up happening is that I have users who are knowledgeable and I give them leeway to be self-maintaining. They end up being my best customers, since they are not hammering my door to give them access they obviously are able to use correctly. Also, my average users know that their computer is really a tool, and they do not want to cause trouble.
Also, of course, I tolerate a bit of personal eBay and web radio to keep the people happy. I just ensure that we have all our AV in place!
The only real trouble user I have is an executive who thinks he knows, but has no clue, and ends up digging himself into holes that it can take a day or two to dig out of - this, even restricted from "Admin" privileges.
So, it sounds like they are postulating that this universe could be the product of another "big rip" (or capital "B" and "R": "Big Rip?"). Sounds possible -- so, this could have gone on for quite a while, no? The "Big Bang" could have been a "Biggish Bang number 42" or some such, with other universes way out there, and farther out than we would ever be able to observe directly.
Personally, I always felt there had to be something beyond the end of the universe. On the other hand, there has to be an end, so we have a paradox that I really don't think has been explored (except, maybe, in Star Trek...)
I agree wholeheartedly. CDs are the way to go, and I'd hate to see them go the way of the dodo. The pricing for music albums (CD, vinyl, cassette, 8track) has always been out of whack with reality, and the music industry has always tried to curtail illegal copying (from the radio, from LP to cassette, from live concerts) in every way except the most obvious: lower the damn price of the albums!
Why is it that DVDs and Music CDs cost about the same, when, when you think about it, the effort to create a movie is a lot greater than the effort to create a music CD?
I use iTunes, and like it, generally, but for music I really care about, I buy the CD.
As I grow older in life, I have come to grips with the fact that some people will never agree with you no matter how much you try. I used to get pissed off about it: "How can they not _see_ something so _obvious_ as..." I realize now that someone's worldview and point of view is the product of years and years of observations, assumptions, fears, prejudices, and experiences.
One thing I realized is that while I will never be a Mormon, Jew, Catholic, or Atheist, and I consider some of their beliefs strange and in some cases outright "wrong", at least from my point of view, I have learned to be tolerant of their beliefs, and their right to choose their religion (or lack thereof). I have many, many deep friends (and family) who believe differently than I do. I work for a man who is a devout Christian, and while I do not share his exact belief, I share in his goal: to make this world a better place, and to help people touch and be inspired by divinity. I have friends of all faiths. A Jewish friend of mind said that the Jew has a pact with God to everyday make the world a better place. I respect that. I have Hindu friends who share a lot of what I believe.
I chose Scientology as my religion. It has been and continues to be my choice. My choice. No one coerced me. No one held me down and "programmed" me (thus requiring a violent "deprogramming" to get me "out"). No one electro-shocked me. No one drugged me. And no one hypnotised me. I read it, did it, and it works for me. Period.
Perhaps you may eventually come to realize that some people will not believe as you do, or see the world your way. I sincerely hope that you do.
I wish people would stop with the "criminal" bullshit. We have been around for almost sixty years. We have been banned, banished, taxed, confiscated, etc., etc. Every ban has been reversed. All confiscated materials have been returned. If our activities were truly illegal, we would have gone the way of Enron. Just because you cannot stretch your head to see how someone could believe something you don't, don't immediately label them as criminal.
I already answered your question regarding belief. I gave you a sincere answer. But, since you need more guidance, here is some of what I believe:
We are not material beings, we are spiritual beings, independent of matter, energy, space, and time. We are, in other words, souls, not merely a collection of molecules and electrons.
Being independent of the body (but not unaffected by it), we can live and be independent of it.
I believe that we are not doomed to fate, but can create our own lives.
I believe in the two rules for happy living: 1. Be able to experience anything. 2. Cause only those things which others can experience easily. (To the degree that people may have had negative experiences with Scientology, the Scientologist may have violated rule 2. The person affected violated rule 1.)
I believe in open versus closed communication. I also believe that we are free to communicate or not communicate at our discretion. For example, just because you ask me to tell you what I believe does not mean I am obligated to tell you. It is my choice.
I believe that when a person is confronted with a massive amount of confusion and unknowns, he or she can tend to shy away. But, since confusion and lack of knowledge and mystery can be physically painful sometimes ("I just have to know what's behind that door!) he or she will just pick up an easy-sounding answer, like, say, "God hates me," or "those people are nuts, anyway", rather than confront it and find out the real truth. It is difficult to confront what you don't know. It is easy to turn away and come up with some pat answer for it. This is called a fixed condition. You do not always know that you have them. Scientology can help you find them and discover the real truth.
I believe that attitude is everything. Two people go to the same job. One person is negative, bitching and moaning, and has the attitude that his is a dead-end job. The other comes to work with a positive attitude, looks for ways to improve his situation, finds ways to do his job better. Same job, totally different attitude. Who gets promoted?
That's enough. You have already made up your mind. You have the attitude that this is a cult, and I am brainwashed, and all the Church is in it for is the money. You aren't seeing what is there, or you are only seeing some slanted opinions of others with very little direct experience, but, hey, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Would that it were more informed.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a Scientologist. I am because I have read and applied the information I found freely in books and other published materials of Scientology and found it to be workable and worthwhile. I am fully aware of the controversies and problems surrounding our religion. I feel profoundly for those who have been victims of either bad people and/or bad policy. And yet, I remain. Why?
Why is a Catholic a Catholic despite pedophile priests and the Inquisition? Why is an atheist an atheist despite the legacies and atrocities of Stalin, Marx, and Mao? Why is a Muslim a Muslim despite radical Islam? Why is a Baptist a Baptist despite Televangelists?
Because there is something profound and meaningful underneath all the BS that rings of Truth.
I have studied religion and biological science deeply. I found that Truth is universal. To me, Scientology helps me organize that Truth.
Au Contraire, dude. Revenue doesn't happen until the product is shipped.
I would have handled the CEO about the same way, but I would have added the price-tag for a bigger pipe along with the logs... Was there any legitimate use of video, or was it all porn? ;)
I invest heavily in AV, anti-spyware, patching systems, etc., to mitigate against the web. Where there is internet access, I don't care who you are, you're going to get all the ills of being next to a sewer.
But, I admit I am soft toward sales and marketing. Sure, they don't make the product, but they sell it. Nothing happens until somebody sells something. Sales is a hard job, and I am willing to put up with a bit of prima donna attitude if the guy is "bringing home the coin." Remember, these guys who are making all this money are the first to get fired when sales slump...
We support the guys making money more than those that spend it, as a rule. Hence, sales, marketing, customer service, manufacturing, shipping -- all line functions -- are supported before Finance, HR, payroll, legal, and the other staff groups. Of course, we support all well across the board, it's just that some are "more equal" than others.
I had my team build the necessary reports using the standard report writers (Balance Sheets, Income Statements, Cash Flow), and now anyone who has access and a need can run these reports in less than five minutes. We are also training the accounting team in the tools so they can create and update the reports themselves.
Now, when these Excel reports were first created, the controller was working with a different IT organization, one that was restrictive and anti-service, to your point. So, he had a need that had to be addressed. However, his Excel reports ended up being a solution to problems that no longer existed -- and he refused to change, and disbelieved that the G/L software could create a proper balance sheet (which, of course, is absurd -- G/L software that can support a public company can create standard accounting reports!).
Hence, my statement about a balance. An organization that has end-users building systems themselves outside their IT organization for mainstream apps (G/L standard reports, call centers, shipping software, broad-public web sites) shows that the IT organization is either non-responsive, or non-funded, or that the users themselves are rogues. Tools such as Excel, Access, MindManager, even VB to some extent, are great tools for local use, and IT should not get in the way.
There is that elusive dividing line between the realm of IT and the realm of the end-user. To my mind, that line is between apps that add value to the company as a whole, and apps that increase the productivity of individuals and small groups/departments. To the extent that a local app can be leveraged across the whole enterprise, IT should help sponsor and nurture it.
One should also recognize that there is "scaffolding" in the form of temporary (or not so temporary) stop-gap systems that need to be in place while the enterprise systems that are supposed to support the function are put in place. In this case, IT should not hinder the scaffolding, and the end users should not rue the dismantling of it when the time comes.
IT is one "Model T" every five years, more or less... So, one better get used to ditching the old. I myself know that 90% of what I know about IT systems is obsolete!
IT's job is to ensure that the people who make money for the company can make money for the company. IT is a support function. Therefore, IT should ensure their customers (sales, marketing, line managers and users) have the tools they need to get the job done, increase revenue, reduce cost, within the constraints of (and despite) regulation and business prudence.
As a user (this was a while back), I invariably went "outside" the "State-approved" environment, usually by creating my own: DOS, Windows, Unix, whatever. The price of freedom was responsibility. I had to support the systems myself, since IT had no clue what I was doing. Where firewalls and other security constraints got in the way, I would handle it either by negotiation (usually I was working on a project that required some access to sensitive corporate data) or by, again, going outside - using external ISPs, services, etc. I was usually able to negotiate a modem line.
On the other side, I have set a firm "this is a company computer" policy in place, and let everyone know that we can and do see everything on their computer, including all emails and web traffic. (The real truth is that I stopped being so draconian and stopped paying for all the web monitoring tools, but they don't know that!) However, emails and other communications can be monitored. I also have various password cracking tools I use to get into, say, Excel docs when it is needed, and that is a "service" of IT. Yes, there are some things we cannot, obviously, crack, but, again, they don't know that.
What ends up happening is that I have users who are knowledgeable and I give them leeway to be self-maintaining. They end up being my best customers, since they are not hammering my door to give them access they obviously are able to use correctly. Also, my average users know that their computer is really a tool, and they do not want to cause trouble.
Also, of course, I tolerate a bit of personal eBay and web radio to keep the people happy. I just ensure that we have all our AV in place!
The only real trouble user I have is an executive who thinks he knows, but has no clue, and ends up digging himself into holes that it can take a day or two to dig out of - this, even restricted from "Admin" privileges.
Personally, I always felt there had to be something beyond the end of the universe. On the other hand, there has to be an end, so we have a paradox that I really don't think has been explored (except, maybe, in Star Trek...)
Why is it that DVDs and Music CDs cost about the same, when, when you think about it, the effort to create a movie is a lot greater than the effort to create a music CD?
I use iTunes, and like it, generally, but for music I really care about, I buy the CD.
are you going faster than the speed of light? How does this jibe with relativity?
One thing I realized is that while I will never be a Mormon, Jew, Catholic, or Atheist, and I consider some of their beliefs strange and in some cases outright "wrong", at least from my point of view, I have learned to be tolerant of their beliefs, and their right to choose their religion (or lack thereof). I have many, many deep friends (and family) who believe differently than I do. I work for a man who is a devout Christian, and while I do not share his exact belief, I share in his goal: to make this world a better place, and to help people touch and be inspired by divinity. I have friends of all faiths. A Jewish friend of mind said that the Jew has a pact with God to everyday make the world a better place. I respect that. I have Hindu friends who share a lot of what I believe.
I chose Scientology as my religion. It has been and continues to be my choice. My choice. No one coerced me. No one held me down and "programmed" me (thus requiring a violent "deprogramming" to get me "out"). No one electro-shocked me. No one drugged me. And no one hypnotised me. I read it, did it, and it works for me. Period.
Perhaps you may eventually come to realize that some people will not believe as you do, or see the world your way. I sincerely hope that you do.
I already answered your question regarding belief. I gave you a sincere answer. But, since you need more guidance, here is some of what I believe:
We are not material beings, we are spiritual beings, independent of matter, energy, space, and time. We are, in other words, souls, not merely a collection of molecules and electrons.
Being independent of the body (but not unaffected by it), we can live and be independent of it.
I believe that we are not doomed to fate, but can create our own lives.
I believe in the two rules for happy living: 1. Be able to experience anything. 2. Cause only those things which others can experience easily. (To the degree that people may have had negative experiences with Scientology, the Scientologist may have violated rule 2. The person affected violated rule 1.)
I believe in open versus closed communication. I also believe that we are free to communicate or not communicate at our discretion. For example, just because you ask me to tell you what I believe does not mean I am obligated to tell you. It is my choice.
I believe that when a person is confronted with a massive amount of confusion and unknowns, he or she can tend to shy away. But, since confusion and lack of knowledge and mystery can be physically painful sometimes ("I just have to know what's behind that door!) he or she will just pick up an easy-sounding answer, like, say, "God hates me," or "those people are nuts, anyway", rather than confront it and find out the real truth. It is difficult to confront what you don't know. It is easy to turn away and come up with some pat answer for it. This is called a fixed condition. You do not always know that you have them. Scientology can help you find them and discover the real truth.
I believe that attitude is everything. Two people go to the same job. One person is negative, bitching and moaning, and has the attitude that his is a dead-end job. The other comes to work with a positive attitude, looks for ways to improve his situation, finds ways to do his job better. Same job, totally different attitude. Who gets promoted?
That's enough. You have already made up your mind. You have the attitude that this is a cult, and I am brainwashed, and all the Church is in it for is the money. You aren't seeing what is there, or you are only seeing some slanted opinions of others with very little direct experience, but, hey, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Would that it were more informed.