Trying to remember the color of the upholstry in a stagecoach in the middle of The Great Gatsby is impossible when you finished the book two weeks ago
*rolls eyes* That kind of question always bugged me. Really, what good does asking little niggling details like that do for you other than force students to find old tests and study to the test? Moreover, I feel the problem is more wise-spread than that. Take history, for instance. How often do you really need to know the exact date of a battle in the Civil War. If you know the year and the general location, maybe a significant event or two, you're perfectly well set. If you should need more detail, all you have to do is pull out a reference book.
Yeah, it's true that a kid could keep himself occupied doing math problems, but how many kids are actually going to do that? That's just asking too much of a kid. Call it lazy if you want, but in the end, it's human nature. Especially since I don't enjoy math anyways, I certainly wasn't going to do more voluntarily. In the end, I would just sit and think/daydream, which kept me both occupied and happy, at least until the teacher got on me about it. I'm perfectly capable of keeping myself occupied, even with nothing more than a blank wall, just not in the ways our educational system considers valid.
I completely agree. Kids are people too, and give them an easy out and they'll generally take it. Yes, I enjoyed some parts of my classwork. I still occasionally derive the quadratic equation or the division rule for derivation when I'm bored. But, quite frankly, if the teacher had asked me to do the minimum work, I'd only do the minimum work. ^_^ Give me a chance to show up the teacher and you would have been much more likely to get me interested... Too, I was and still am one of those people who often listens and understands better when I'm not devoting my full attention to the speaker. One of my math teachers recognized that and didn't object to me reading a book in class so long as I could answer when I was called on and as long as she approved of my reading choices. (She was very big on classic sci-fi and fantasy) Because of her, I tested out of the first two Calculus classes at my university, despite only having had a year of Calculus in high school.
I think it varies. If we go from the perspective of "smart" as "asking questions and seeing multiple possibilities," which to me seems the polar opposite of what the parent posts were saying about the security not being so smart, I could see two sides of the coin.
On one hand, because they ask questions and see multiple possibilities, a "smart" person may be more likely to notice little inconsistencies like the picture on an ID being slightly crooked, or the person's shoes not matching their uniform.
On the other hand, they may be more likely to make excuses for inconsistencies. Because they tend to envision multiple scenarios and possibilities, they're excusing what inconsistencies that they see. The picture's crooked because everyone knows not all pictures come out perfect. The shoes might not match because he had to dress in the dark due to a blackout.
Overall, I'd say it would come down to teaching people to be perceptive, and to trust their judgement regarding their perceptions. If things seem off, there's a good chance that they are.
Huh. Interesting. I'm in an odd position because while I support the banning of "emergency contraceptives" as they don't actually work as a contraceptive, but as an anti-implantation method (yes, I know that when the Pill was introduced, the drug companies lobbied to have the official definition of contraception changed so that they didn't have to market the Pill as a potential abortifacent), I don't agree with how Target is handling this. Either outright ban the item because you don't feel it's right to sell it, or put in allowances to prevent someone with moral opposition to this medicine from being forced to run the pharmacy desk. *wry grin* Then again, that latter case probably wouldn't work as pharmacists probably make more money and therefore we have discrimination in job duties due to religious beliefs. *sigh* And really, the case could be carried to just about anything rather than just this drug. I admire Target for stating their reason for this rather than prevaricating about low supply or the like. My cynic sense tells me that this could just be a PR move given that it's not horribly consistent from store to store or phramacist to pharmacist. Meh... this is what comes of trying to mix morality and capitalism; they're not exactly easily miscible.
Didn't I see this in some book? (And my apologies if I didn't manage to properly sanitize the link... not experienced in linking Amazon) Anyhow, one of the bits in the Fearless series (and I think it was in the 22nd one) involved the scientists demonstrating the "fearless gene" (yeah... the science in the book is a bit iffy) by injecting a mouse and showing that he showed no fear when the cat behind the glass partition tried to pounce him, but rather reacted by trying to attack the cat. One of the more amusing bits of the book was were the main villain, after the potential subject left, lifted the glass partition and watched the mouse get easily devoured by the cat as he lacked the proper fear to run.
Amusing series in a lot of ways although, as aforementionned, the science is not top-rate.
*shrug* You probably never have to upgrade your DVD products. Me, I ran into a situation where the copy of WIndows XP I was sold was an illegal one (in retrospect, I should have asked more questions), but I didn't find out until 2 years later. *wry grin* My product key was accepted when I first tried validating the CD Key after I got it (it was probably one of the group licenses that they didn't catch until later) but a few months ago, I get a message saying I can't download updates because I'm running an illegal copy of XP. Now they tell me... good luck me providing any receipts to prove where I bought it. Meh, not like it bothers me too much. With ZoneAlarm running, not running IE or Outlook, and having disabled all of the Messenger services, I figure I'm safe enough for now. Microsoft isn't getting any more money from me unless I decide to upgrade.
If you use Firefox normally, then how does IE become heavily infected with spyware?
I suspect it's the "free" downloads which have the spyware built in. There's a fair amount of them out there from MP3 ripping software to DVD playing. Many of them have achieved a high Google Pagerank for searches for things like "free dvd playing software" so people download them and don't carefully read the EULA for the notice of spyware^K^Kadvertising information collection software.
Your conjugation is fine, third-person present tense. However, it's "a sense of humor" not "humor sense." ^_^ Otherwise, very good for a non-native English speaker. Those of us who are natives have enough trouble as it is.
Embryos, not fetuses.
*rolls eyes* They're the same thing, a unborn child. I think there's a technical description where embryo is used from conception to 8 months and fetus is used for 8 weeks in to birth, but for all practical purposes, it's all the same. It's all a child who hasn't been born yet.
Starbucks also have a tendency to over-roast their beans which leads to a bit of a burnt flavor on most of their coffees. Do they beat the hell out of freeze-dried store-bought crap? You bet they do. Are they still lacking in quality to save a buck? Yes.
Well, that would explain it... I've tried Starbucks several times because people keep assuring me that it really is good and every time it's acrid and burnt. As for the comparison to store-bought coffee... *shrug* Maybe it's a matter of taste, but I'll take store-bought instant over Starbucks! I like my coffee to not leave with with a horrible taste in my mouth for the next few hours.
*wry grin* I suspect it's a bit like how her ein the Columbus, OH area, it's been ruled that it's not illegal for women to be topless in any area where men are allowed to be topless. Sure, it's not technically illegal, but there's a good chance of being cited for a public disturbance if you're not real careful about how you go about it.
Who has more incentive to operate smoothly, efficiently and effectively--the government or a private company? A large part of answering that rests on whom has more competition--and if the government is subsidizing an entire field, they don't have much competition at all. Privatizing in itself does little--it's competition that keeps things going. Also, people in other people's pockets will always exist, public or private. But privatization is, on the whole, a much better way to run things.
For one, privitization seldom involves competition. Generally one company is assigned. Therefore, we have a monopoly. And, well, companies don't exist to provide services; they exist to make a profit. I don't know about you, but I prefer everything essential to remain in the hands of the government, who's willing to throw money at a problem to be sure that my electricity stays on, that my mail gets delivered, that the roads are safe, rather than subsidizing a company who sees no problems with providing service at or below minimums because it's cheaper. Theoretically, they ought to be bound by contracts but a) wording a contract to avoid loopholes is extremely difficult and b) most companies see fines and penalties as just part of the cost of doing business. Even if there were competition in privitization, who's going to be able to stick around longer? A company which provides all of the services for $15 million? Or the other company which fiddles with records and shorts service and comes out only costing $5 million until the erroneous bookkeeping is found? And how much damage will be done by the time things are found out?
As for real-life examples, how well did privitization of electricity go in California?
My understanding is that most states allow you to walk down the street with a handgun holstered on your hip in broad view. The trouble comes when you try to hide it. And, since there's not always reciprocity in the laws, it's possible to have a concealed carry license in Ohio and get arrested in several other states on a routine traffic stop.
I "bought" a house in february. It was $100k. If I had put that same amount into google stock I could have bought at least 3 houses of the same amount.
*rolls eyes* And if you'd put it on the table at Vegas, you might have easily multiplied your investment too. There was nothing certain about the Google IPO (assuming you were lucky enough to be able to get shares). It was a relatively safe risk given how long Google has beena round and how good their public opinion is, but you could have just as easily lost out on it. Just look at the people who invested in Intel at the wrong time. Or worse, some of the Internet bubble start-ups...
Well, my point is not that sex isn't a morally charged act, or what have you, but that implying something is not a pandemic solely to your issues with how people get it is a bit shortsighted. After all, how would you feel if people implied that (hypothetically) dying of Creutzfeld Jacob disease was your fault for eating red meat? There's no morality to a disease, it doesn't pick and choose.
^_^ Honestly, I've had some of the more militaristic vegans imply as much except that they were quoting higher cancer rates and the like.
As for HIV/AIDS not being such a pandemic, I guess that my point was that it's a disease that's fairly easily contained and controlled. Something like a flu epidemic sweeps through a nation like wildfire because by the time we realize its existence, it's too late to do too much to guard ourselves against it, plus it's related to many largely unconscious reactions. In comparison, HIV/AIDS is something which generally requires an act of fair significance to the average person which one is not likely to be doing with multiple people in the same week. (Or maybe not... I'm told I'm rather old-fashioned about such things.) And, despite people clamoring over the "AIDS epidemic," it's really not spreading all that quickly outside of places like Africa, wherein it's partly due to overpopulation and partly due to some ignorance in the area.
Yes, there is no real morality to a disease, but I think I would argue that the method of spreading a disease can indeed be linked to morality of some sort. Much of religion is rooted in practicality. Now whether it becomes an actual matter of morality at that point versus common sense is a debate for the philosophers and theologians. *shrug* And I, bearing the biases that I do, feel that there is an issue of morality in the spread of these STDs.
*shrug* I disagree, but I respect your right to disagree with me. A person in a monogamous faithful relationship... but I know that's rare these days. Meh, if sex is equivalent to talking, your analogy fits. *wry grin* Then again, it might not be too far off. I remember a long conversation with a friend in middle school which came down to her realizing that she'd had sex with a lot of guys that she wouldn't kiss, that she saw a kiss as a more significiant act.
In some countries (notably my own) it is not considered rape should a 16 year old have sex with a willing 15 year + 11 month old.
You not only allow 16 year olds to have sex with 15 year olds, but simultaneously also have sex with 11 month olds? That's just sick, man...
I hear "scrum" and I think of a rugby scrum. Which, honestly, kind of fits for XP. You throw a bunch of guys at it and after a lot of pain, fuss, and broken bones, it works its way to some edge of the field, although you're never entirely sure which.
*shrug* We tried XP here. We're on a modified variant currently. Interesting idea but I agree with the guy who said that XP is like sticking your hands in a box of poisonous snakes and hoping that they're all too busy biting each other to pay attention to you.
I know it's not cool or "133t" to admit such things, but my homepage is a subdirectory of a larger domain. Oddly enough, they let me register users.adelphia.net with the service, but they won't let me register users.adelphia.net/~user.name/, where my site actually is. Since their code isn't on the base page, they don't register the code I have on subdirectories.
Huh... and I'm mildly curious as to whether anyone else can register the URL of users.adelphia.net.
At the risk of not being PC enough, the only reason HIV/AIDS is spreading around so rapidly is the rampant sex. Admittedly, in Africa, you've got the issue of local legends of having sex with young virgins (and by young, we're talking way pre-pubescent...) curing AIDS, which leads to unwilling infections, but for the most part, HIV is being spread among people who know exactly what they're doing. I think labeling it as a pandemic would be similar to designating lung cancer from smoking as a pandemic.
They had a game like that, Majestic. It bombed. I think most people play computer games to do things they can't do. Therefore, you either a) have tasks that are so dumbed down they're ludicrous ("To translate the ancient language, figure out the simple substitution cypher") or they become slightly irrelevant to the actual puzzle ("play the Tetris minigame to pick the lock"). Besides which, how many people would actually try to solve a puzzle by guile and how many people would be firing up GameFAQs?
Indeed, that was a very creepy level. For me, the scariest bits were were things flitted from one corridor to the other, but weren't there when you arrived at the corridor itself. I think F.E.A.R. may have gotten some of its ideas from there.
That said, after watching House on Haunted Hill (no, not the lousy sequel), anyone else think a game based on that would be interesting? Random creepy things happening, but you're armed with a gun that has a limited number of bullets and you can't shoot innocent guests who startle you. The game is randomized as to which events might actually be real encounters so you have to wait to see if something is really attacking you rather than shooting at the first thing that moves.
Perhaps I am confused as to your meaning, but my intention was to comment on how many Christian sects have incorrect beliefs about Catholics like the "saint worship" and their viewing of societies like the Knights of Columbus as "secret societies." *shrug* That said, it seems you've got a serious anger on for any sect of Christianity.
It seems like a lot of ID/Creationist supporters - especially the hardcore - prefer a weak, limited God, whose limitations are not unlike their own.
Personally, I see this as often a matter of anthropomorphization. People want a human God because they can identify with such a being and they feel like they can bargain with it. Witness that most polytheistic religions essentially sport powered-up humans. They eat, they fuck, and sometimes they die. Thing is, to me, it's practically impossible to try to discuss God without limitting him. I don't know that it would be possible to fathom his reasoning. He's God. He's omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and any attempt we make to fathom his plans is like an ant trying to figure out why humans do income taxes. Many people then go from there to the "world is God's ant farm and he's got a magnifying glass" idea or "disinterested observer God." *wry grin* Except that a Christian tenet is that God loves us. So we have a being being understanding who nonetheless feels an emotion comparable to human love (or incomparable according to some. His love is infinite, much as he is infinite). One could argue Anger and Wrath from the Old Testament too. *shrug* How much of this is God's actual emotions and how much is people anthropomorphizing him to be comfortable, goodness only knows.
Slashdot Mirror
*rolls eyes* That kind of question always bugged me. Really, what good does asking little niggling details like that do for you other than force students to find old tests and study to the test? Moreover, I feel the problem is more wise-spread than that. Take history, for instance. How often do you really need to know the exact date of a battle in the Civil War. If you know the year and the general location, maybe a significant event or two, you're perfectly well set. If you should need more detail, all you have to do is pull out a reference book.
Yeah, it's true that a kid could keep himself occupied doing math problems, but how many kids are actually going to do that? That's just asking too much of a kid. Call it lazy if you want, but in the end, it's human nature. Especially since I don't enjoy math anyways, I certainly wasn't going to do more voluntarily. In the end, I would just sit and think/daydream, which kept me both occupied and happy, at least until the teacher got on me about it. I'm perfectly capable of keeping myself occupied, even with nothing more than a blank wall, just not in the ways our educational system considers valid.
I completely agree. Kids are people too, and give them an easy out and they'll generally take it. Yes, I enjoyed some parts of my classwork. I still occasionally derive the quadratic equation or the division rule for derivation when I'm bored. But, quite frankly, if the teacher had asked me to do the minimum work, I'd only do the minimum work. ^_^ Give me a chance to show up the teacher and you would have been much more likely to get me interested... Too, I was and still am one of those people who often listens and understands better when I'm not devoting my full attention to the speaker. One of my math teachers recognized that and didn't object to me reading a book in class so long as I could answer when I was called on and as long as she approved of my reading choices. (She was very big on classic sci-fi and fantasy) Because of her, I tested out of the first two Calculus classes at my university, despite only having had a year of Calculus in high school.
On one hand, because they ask questions and see multiple possibilities, a "smart" person may be more likely to notice little inconsistencies like the picture on an ID being slightly crooked, or the person's shoes not matching their uniform.
On the other hand, they may be more likely to make excuses for inconsistencies. Because they tend to envision multiple scenarios and possibilities, they're excusing what inconsistencies that they see. The picture's crooked because everyone knows not all pictures come out perfect. The shoes might not match because he had to dress in the dark due to a blackout.
Overall, I'd say it would come down to teaching people to be perceptive, and to trust their judgement regarding their perceptions. If things seem off, there's a good chance that they are.
Huh. Interesting. I'm in an odd position because while I support the banning of "emergency contraceptives" as they don't actually work as a contraceptive, but as an anti-implantation method (yes, I know that when the Pill was introduced, the drug companies lobbied to have the official definition of contraception changed so that they didn't have to market the Pill as a potential abortifacent), I don't agree with how Target is handling this. Either outright ban the item because you don't feel it's right to sell it, or put in allowances to prevent someone with moral opposition to this medicine from being forced to run the pharmacy desk. *wry grin* Then again, that latter case probably wouldn't work as pharmacists probably make more money and therefore we have discrimination in job duties due to religious beliefs. *sigh* And really, the case could be carried to just about anything rather than just this drug. I admire Target for stating their reason for this rather than prevaricating about low supply or the like. My cynic sense tells me that this could just be a PR move given that it's not horribly consistent from store to store or phramacist to pharmacist. Meh... this is what comes of trying to mix morality and capitalism; they're not exactly easily miscible.
Amusing series in a lot of ways although, as aforementionned, the science is not top-rate.
*shrug* You probably never have to upgrade your DVD products. Me, I ran into a situation where the copy of WIndows XP I was sold was an illegal one (in retrospect, I should have asked more questions), but I didn't find out until 2 years later. *wry grin* My product key was accepted when I first tried validating the CD Key after I got it (it was probably one of the group licenses that they didn't catch until later) but a few months ago, I get a message saying I can't download updates because I'm running an illegal copy of XP. Now they tell me... good luck me providing any receipts to prove where I bought it. Meh, not like it bothers me too much. With ZoneAlarm running, not running IE or Outlook, and having disabled all of the Messenger services, I figure I'm safe enough for now. Microsoft isn't getting any more money from me unless I decide to upgrade.
If you use Firefox normally, then how does IE become heavily infected with spyware?
I suspect it's the "free" downloads which have the spyware built in. There's a fair amount of them out there from MP3 ripping software to DVD playing. Many of them have achieved a high Google Pagerank for searches for things like "free dvd playing software" so people download them and don't carefully read the EULA for the notice of spyware^K^Kadvertising information collection software.
Your conjugation is fine, third-person present tense. However, it's "a sense of humor" not "humor sense." ^_^ Otherwise, very good for a non-native English speaker. Those of us who are natives have enough trouble as it is.
More importantly: Don't be too clever.
It's when people try to get clever in their coding that it gets hard to read. And, quite frankly, that's the code that generally breaks most easily.
Embryos, not fetuses.
*rolls eyes* They're the same thing, a unborn child. I think there's a technical description where embryo is used from conception to 8 months and fetus is used for 8 weeks in to birth, but for all practical purposes, it's all the same. It's all a child who hasn't been born yet.
Starbucks also have a tendency to over-roast their beans which leads to a bit of a burnt flavor on most of their coffees. Do they beat the hell out of freeze-dried store-bought crap? You bet they do. Are they still lacking in quality to save a buck? Yes.
Well, that would explain it... I've tried Starbucks several times because people keep assuring me that it really is good and every time it's acrid and burnt. As for the comparison to store-bought coffee... *shrug* Maybe it's a matter of taste, but I'll take store-bought instant over Starbucks! I like my coffee to not leave with with a horrible taste in my mouth for the next few hours.
*wry grin* I suspect it's a bit like how her ein the Columbus, OH area, it's been ruled that it's not illegal for women to be topless in any area where men are allowed to be topless. Sure, it's not technically illegal, but there's a good chance of being cited for a public disturbance if you're not real careful about how you go about it.
For one, privitization seldom involves competition. Generally one company is assigned. Therefore, we have a monopoly. And, well, companies don't exist to provide services; they exist to make a profit. I don't know about you, but I prefer everything essential to remain in the hands of the government, who's willing to throw money at a problem to be sure that my electricity stays on, that my mail gets delivered, that the roads are safe, rather than subsidizing a company who sees no problems with providing service at or below minimums because it's cheaper. Theoretically, they ought to be bound by contracts but a) wording a contract to avoid loopholes is extremely difficult and b) most companies see fines and penalties as just part of the cost of doing business. Even if there were competition in privitization, who's going to be able to stick around longer? A company which provides all of the services for $15 million? Or the other company which fiddles with records and shorts service and comes out only costing $5 million until the erroneous bookkeeping is found? And how much damage will be done by the time things are found out?
As for real-life examples, how well did privitization of electricity go in California?
My understanding is that most states allow you to walk down the street with a handgun holstered on your hip in broad view. The trouble comes when you try to hide it. And, since there's not always reciprocity in the laws, it's possible to have a concealed carry license in Ohio and get arrested in several other states on a routine traffic stop.
I "bought" a house in february. It was $100k. If I had put that same amount into google stock I could have bought at least 3 houses of the same amount.
*rolls eyes* And if you'd put it on the table at Vegas, you might have easily multiplied your investment too. There was nothing certain about the Google IPO (assuming you were lucky enough to be able to get shares). It was a relatively safe risk given how long Google has beena round and how good their public opinion is, but you could have just as easily lost out on it. Just look at the people who invested in Intel at the wrong time. Or worse, some of the Internet bubble start-ups...
^_^ Honestly, I've had some of the more militaristic vegans imply as much except that they were quoting higher cancer rates and the like.
As for HIV/AIDS not being such a pandemic, I guess that my point was that it's a disease that's fairly easily contained and controlled. Something like a flu epidemic sweeps through a nation like wildfire because by the time we realize its existence, it's too late to do too much to guard ourselves against it, plus it's related to many largely unconscious reactions. In comparison, HIV/AIDS is something which generally requires an act of fair significance to the average person which one is not likely to be doing with multiple people in the same week. (Or maybe not... I'm told I'm rather old-fashioned about such things.) And, despite people clamoring over the "AIDS epidemic," it's really not spreading all that quickly outside of places like Africa, wherein it's partly due to overpopulation and partly due to some ignorance in the area.
Yes, there is no real morality to a disease, but I think I would argue that the method of spreading a disease can indeed be linked to morality of some sort. Much of religion is rooted in practicality. Now whether it becomes an actual matter of morality at that point versus common sense is a debate for the philosophers and theologians. *shrug* And I, bearing the biases that I do, feel that there is an issue of morality in the spread of these STDs.
*shrug* I disagree, but I respect your right to disagree with me. A person in a monogamous faithful relationship... but I know that's rare these days. Meh, if sex is equivalent to talking, your analogy fits. *wry grin* Then again, it might not be too far off. I remember a long conversation with a friend in middle school which came down to her realizing that she'd had sex with a lot of guys that she wouldn't kiss, that she saw a kiss as a more significiant act.
In some countries (notably my own) it is not considered rape should a 16 year old have sex with a willing 15 year + 11 month old.
You not only allow 16 year olds to have sex with 15 year olds, but simultaneously also have sex with 11 month olds? That's just sick, man...
*shrug* We tried XP here. We're on a modified variant currently. Interesting idea but I agree with the guy who said that XP is like sticking your hands in a box of poisonous snakes and hoping that they're all too busy biting each other to pay attention to you.
Huh... and I'm mildly curious as to whether anyone else can register the URL of users.adelphia.net.
At the risk of not being PC enough, the only reason HIV/AIDS is spreading around so rapidly is the rampant sex. Admittedly, in Africa, you've got the issue of local legends of having sex with young virgins (and by young, we're talking way pre-pubescent...) curing AIDS, which leads to unwilling infections, but for the most part, HIV is being spread among people who know exactly what they're doing. I think labeling it as a pandemic would be similar to designating lung cancer from smoking as a pandemic.
Meh... I've been there before. It's a somewhat bizarre read to be sure.
They had a game like that, Majestic. It bombed. I think most people play computer games to do things they can't do. Therefore, you either a) have tasks that are so dumbed down they're ludicrous ("To translate the ancient language, figure out the simple substitution cypher") or they become slightly irrelevant to the actual puzzle ("play the Tetris minigame to pick the lock"). Besides which, how many people would actually try to solve a puzzle by guile and how many people would be firing up GameFAQs?
That said, after watching House on Haunted Hill (no, not the lousy sequel), anyone else think a game based on that would be interesting? Random creepy things happening, but you're armed with a gun that has a limited number of bullets and you can't shoot innocent guests who startle you. The game is randomized as to which events might actually be real encounters so you have to wait to see if something is really attacking you rather than shooting at the first thing that moves.
Perhaps I am confused as to your meaning, but my intention was to comment on how many Christian sects have incorrect beliefs about Catholics like the "saint worship" and their viewing of societies like the Knights of Columbus as "secret societies." *shrug* That said, it seems you've got a serious anger on for any sect of Christianity.
It seems like a lot of ID/Creationist supporters - especially the hardcore - prefer a weak, limited God, whose limitations are not unlike their own.
Personally, I see this as often a matter of anthropomorphization. People want a human God because they can identify with such a being and they feel like they can bargain with it. Witness that most polytheistic religions essentially sport powered-up humans. They eat, they fuck, and sometimes they die. Thing is, to me, it's practically impossible to try to discuss God without limitting him. I don't know that it would be possible to fathom his reasoning. He's God. He's omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and any attempt we make to fathom his plans is like an ant trying to figure out why humans do income taxes. Many people then go from there to the "world is God's ant farm and he's got a magnifying glass" idea or "disinterested observer God." *wry grin* Except that a Christian tenet is that God loves us. So we have a being being understanding who nonetheless feels an emotion comparable to human love (or incomparable according to some. His love is infinite, much as he is infinite). One could argue Anger and Wrath from the Old Testament too. *shrug* How much of this is God's actual emotions and how much is people anthropomorphizing him to be comfortable, goodness only knows.