"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. Roberts
Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.
I'd think that all powerful beings would be amply capable of smiting anyone they themselves deem to have insulted them,
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicarus 47 A.D.
Terrorists are not stupid. They have been to the same universities as you have AND have their degree. Criminals are also not stupid. They are just lazy.
Perhaps those bad terrorists do not really care about the USofA and are more interested that things go as they like at home.
Missed the part where I did took the meeting 15 minutes longer (well, let it end 15 minutes later). If they don't have enough time between meetings, then please let me know and I can move the meeting. from 15:00 to 15:30. If not all can be there, then so be it. They can press the decline button.
In that company I have had also the easiest meetings. Once the organizer and myself where there. As nobody showed up, we took all the decisions in those 15 minutes unanimously. As he was pretty high ip the ranks, they did not like it, but were not able to do much about it either.
And no, I was not the only one who had issue with the starting times. It was getting serious out of hand.
Several things were done. First look at reducing meetings. Then see if all people where needed at meetings. One person did nothing else but went from meeting to meeting. (Well, almost)
And yes, I am doing myself and them a favor for insisting to be on time. That way I and them can leave on time as well and do whatever we need to do.
Where I work now, everybody is there on the dot. So much that we know how much time the elevator takes. Even if the CEO is late, we will go and get him. The only excuse is if somebody with a customer and they will let know they will be later and why.
I am sure you are more important then all the rest of the people, so they can wait for you.
I worked at a company where I was sitting 15 minutes till all the people where available. When I asked why that was, they told me that it was custom to begin 15 minutes later.
So the next time I clearly invited them at 16:00, but I asked them for a 1 hour meeting. This would mean they could have gone home like normal people at 17:00 if they would have been on time. Should see the look on their faces when I explained this at the beginning of the meeting.
Sure, your time is important, but so is mine and everybody elses. If you can't be on time for a meeting, how can I trust you to do anything else I kindly ask you. It is just common courtesy.
It is nice to see that you do not believe in any meeting ritual and then describe YOUR meeting ritual. Oh, it was not a standup meeting? It was a simple, informal process for shift change and report. Sounds like a standup-meeting to me.
You have a point. A very good one. You must find what works for YOU as a team.
This about sums it up. You could see it as a mini-team-building or an organized chat around the water-thing. We did ours in the kitchen where the coffee machine was. During summer we did them outside. We sometimes even grouped them smokers and non-smokers, so we could smoke outside during that meeeting.:-D
In Belgium the saying goes "dat lossen we tussen pot en pint op" meaning we will solve it between beers. What it actally means that most problems will be solved in an informal manner.
Look at smokers. They will see people from other departments and will solve many issues between departments just by knowing the people.
I am well aware that this might be a shock to most on/., but not all people think logical. In fact most people won't. The majority are social people. That means they can remember all the names of all the people who were voted off some show, but won't remember who were the last two presidents.
If you can not put that into your logic, then perhaps you are not as logical as you thought you were.
I think a better way to go would be to stop inviting everyone from the top down to meetings that could be better served via email, or even IM.
The reason we did a weekly standup meeting of 15 minutes was because people did not read those email, web announcements or what not. Sure, you could force them to reply to mails or fire them if they didn't know or whatever. Sometimes however mails arrive at moments people are doing other things. I leave it out if they are important or not.
So a good solution was to TELL them in person what was important to us and listen what was important to them.
This did not mean that we would read each and every email we had send. What we did was pick 3 points that needed focus. This could be deadlines, major changes in procedures, drink after work, new projects, stats and numbers, announcements,...
We held them in the kitchen, because that was where the coffee machine was. After a while you get pretty good at it and it can be done easily in 15 minutes.
Obviously it all depends on the size of group, the information you want to bring across and the way you bring it. If you want several thousand people standing in line and yell at them how horrible they do their job, that might be a bit wrong.
I would say max 10 people in total. More needs to be split. It will not me magical. It will however cooperation and understanding.
Oh and no handouts, unless you can eat them. Just a short minute online for upper management. (Your staff is not going to read it. Otherwise you would not need those weekly meetings.)
We called them "Power Meettings". The time you do it depends on the goal of your meeting. Do you want to inform how you did? End of the week. What you want to do? Begin of the week. And no, no 9:00 meetings.
Yes, because that is what I like. Click on accept and/or decline for each website I ever visit and then not know if it actually comes from that site or from a subdomain or from some iframe or...
You want to know the updates of a site? Use RSS. Opt-in, not opt-out please.
In a two-party system this is only option. What if you are "married gays against abortion" or something similar and both are important? In the current two-party system you have no option but to vote for one of the things you are opposed to.
In a multiple party system you will more likely find a situation that you are willing to agree with. Two options for and agains A and B, you will have in a four party system: +A+B +A-B -A+B -A-B
Does this mean it will always work? No, because we are all individuals (I am not) and will have so many different ideas of how things should be. But at least it would be a much fairer situation.
The situation now is that if you are pro-gay-mariage or anti-gay-mariage, you are forced to agree with the rest as well.
I am fully aware of the whole quote: I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.
Also: it is a quote and as such a reflection how _I_ feel, not what Sagan thought of the matter. Just wanted to clearify that before people start ranting
Assume we're not the first sentient species to evolve, most species evolve technologically in a similar way, we're not by some bad luck in an incredibly underpopulated galaxy, etc. These are all reasonable assumptions.
On basis of what do you call them reasonable? On a sample of 1? And that out of how many species withe average lifespan of a species being...
Who says they are looking and if they are looking, do they want to let know they are there (let alone talk to us?)
Sure, we now happily send a LOT of waves into the world. Assume they do the same. How will technology evolve? It can be said that to save energy, they have more directed signals, meaning nothing goes where they do not want it to go.
Even though there was a period where they polluted their airwaves, that is several thousand years behind us, so we missed that. During the period we transmit, before they start listening again, we get to the high tech stuff.
Then they die as a species, then we do. Never having left our home. Never knowing if there are others out there.
Somehow people want to believe in not being alone. One half of the planet tells that there must be God(s), others say there must be ETs. I do not know. All I know is that IF we find either, it won't be because we looked for it. It is because of some stupid incident. Then we will call Eureka!
To quote Carl Sagan : I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.
To be able to talk to an intelligent and sufficiently technicially advanced species I would suggest we first try to reach that level ourselves. Especially the intelligent part.
Slashdot Mirror
ROT13? Jvyy gurl or noyr gb ernq guvf be jba'g gurl?
It can be said that the majority is NOT a member of your religion.
Some numbers: http://godisimaginary.com/i28.htm
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. Roberts
Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicarus 47 A.D.
We were talking about religions, not about cults.
Terrorists are not stupid. They have been to the same universities as you have AND have their degree.
Criminals are also not stupid. They are just lazy.
Perhaps those bad terrorists do not really care about the USofA and are more interested that things go as they like at home.
Consider everything that is not encrypted to be known by The Man.
I am not paranoia, I KNOW that I am being followed.
A weapon of mass destruction on Baltimore? LOL.
When you read http://skyvalleychronicle.com/GENERAL-VALLEY-NEWS/FORMER-L-A-MAN-PLEADS-GUILTY-IN-PLOT-TO-ATTACK-SEATTLE-MILITARY-PROCESSING-CENTER-846631 which is nicely standard FBI fodder, what you read is that somebody tried to buy a gun.
He can't have a gun because of an earlier conviction.
Suddenly this is a weapon of mass destruction? How did that happen?
Sure, there will ALWAYS be idiots who want to do something like that. What you read on that page is standard FUD.
"I will kill the the Queen"
Imagine that was the message. How do they know this? Did the receiver go to the police? No. They just monitor everything you say.
I am not worried about the message. I am worried that the read the message.
Missed the part where I did took the meeting 15 minutes longer (well, let it end 15 minutes later).
If they don't have enough time between meetings, then please let me know and I can move the meeting. from 15:00 to 15:30. If not all can be there, then so be it. They can press the decline button.
In that company I have had also the easiest meetings. Once the organizer and myself where there. As nobody showed up, we took all the decisions in those 15 minutes unanimously. As he was pretty high ip the ranks, they did not like it, but were not able to do much about it either.
And no, I was not the only one who had issue with the starting times. It was getting serious out of hand.
Several things were done. First look at reducing meetings. Then see if all people where needed at meetings. One person did nothing else but went from meeting to meeting. (Well, almost)
And yes, I am doing myself and them a favor for insisting to be on time. That way I and them can leave on time as well and do whatever we need to do.
Where I work now, everybody is there on the dot. So much that we know how much time the elevator takes. Even if the CEO is late, we will go and get him. The only excuse is if somebody with a customer and they will let know they will be later and why.
Much easier to plan your day that way.
Go to the website and click on their link. Would have been faster then typing your question.
Wow, just wow. What is the word I am looking for. Oh yes: BULLSHIT!
I am sure you are more important then all the rest of the people, so they can wait for you.
I worked at a company where I was sitting 15 minutes till all the people where available. When I asked why that was, they told me that it was custom to begin 15 minutes later.
So the next time I clearly invited them at 16:00, but I asked them for a 1 hour meeting. This would mean they could have gone home like normal people at 17:00 if they would have been on time. Should see the look on their faces when I explained this at the beginning of the meeting.
Sure, your time is important, but so is mine and everybody elses. If you can't be on time for a meeting, how can I trust you to do anything else I kindly ask you. It is just common courtesy.
It is nice to see that you do not believe in any meeting ritual and then describe YOUR meeting ritual.
Oh, it was not a standup meeting? It was a simple, informal process for shift change and report. Sounds like a standup-meeting to me.
You have a point. A very good one. You must find what works for YOU as a team.
This about sums it up. You could see it as a mini-team-building or an organized chat around the water-thing. :-D
We did ours in the kitchen where the coffee machine was. During summer we did them outside. We sometimes even grouped them smokers and non-smokers, so we could smoke outside during that meeeting.
In Belgium the saying goes "dat lossen we tussen pot en pint op" meaning we will solve it between beers. What it actally means that most problems will be solved in an informal manner.
Look at smokers. They will see people from other departments and will solve many issues between departments just by knowing the people.
I am well aware that this might be a shock to most on /., but not all people think logical. In fact most people won't. The majority are social people. That means they can remember all the names of all the people who were voted off some show, but won't remember who were the last two presidents.
If you can not put that into your logic, then perhaps you are not as logical as you thought you were.
The reason we did a weekly standup meeting of 15 minutes was because people did not read those email, web announcements or what not.
Sure, you could force them to reply to mails or fire them if they didn't know or whatever. Sometimes however mails arrive at moments people are doing other things. I leave it out if they are important or not.
So a good solution was to TELL them in person what was important to us and listen what was important to them.
This did not mean that we would read each and every email we had send. What we did was pick 3 points that needed focus. This could be deadlines, major changes in procedures, drink after work, new projects, stats and numbers, announcements, ...
We held them in the kitchen, because that was where the coffee machine was. After a while you get pretty good at it and it can be done easily in 15 minutes.
Obviously it all depends on the size of group, the information you want to bring across and the way you bring it.
If you want several thousand people standing in line and yell at them how horrible they do their job, that might be a bit wrong.
I would say max 10 people in total. More needs to be split. It will not me magical. It will however cooperation and understanding.
Oh and no handouts, unless you can eat them. Just a short minute online for upper management. (Your staff is not going to read it. Otherwise you would not need those weekly meetings.)
We called them "Power Meettings". The time you do it depends on the goal of your meeting. Do you want to inform how you did? End of the week. What you want to do? Begin of the week. And no, no 9:00 meetings.
The Graveyards Are Full of Indispensable Men
So no, he was not taking too much risks.
Yes, because that is what I like. Click on accept and/or decline for each website I ever visit and then not know if it actually comes from that site or from a subdomain or from some iframe or ...
You want to know the updates of a site? Use RSS. Opt-in, not opt-out please.
An axample of what else is out there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yysbbPStfWw
http://bandcamp.com/ does about the same.
So who was again backed by the people for the people?
As long as you have a two-party system, you will be between a rock and a hard place.
In a two-party system this is only option.
What if you are "married gays against abortion" or something similar and both are important? In the current two-party system you have no option but to vote for one of the things you are opposed to.
In a multiple party system you will more likely find a situation that you are willing to agree with. Two options for and agains A and B, you will have in a four party system:
+A+B
+A-B
-A+B
-A-B
Does this mean it will always work? No, because we are all individuals (I am not) and will have so many different ideas of how things should be. But at least it would be a much fairer situation.
The situation now is that if you are pro-gay-mariage or anti-gay-mariage, you are forced to agree with the rest as well.
I am fully aware of the whole quote:
I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.
Also: it is a quote and as such a reflection how _I_ feel, not what Sagan thought of the matter. Just wanted to clearify that before people start ranting
On basis of what do you call them reasonable? On a sample of 1? ...
And that out of how many species withe average lifespan of a species being
Who says they are looking and if they are looking, do they want to let know they are there (let alone talk to us?)
Sure, we now happily send a LOT of waves into the world. Assume they do the same. How will technology evolve? It can be said that to save energy, they have more directed signals, meaning nothing goes where they do not want it to go.
Even though there was a period where they polluted their airwaves, that is several thousand years behind us, so we missed that. During the period we transmit, before they start listening again, we get to the high tech stuff.
Then they die as a species, then we do. Never having left our home. Never knowing if there are others out there.
Somehow people want to believe in not being alone. One half of the planet tells that there must be God(s), others say there must be ETs. I do not know. All I know is that IF we find either, it won't be because we looked for it. It is because of some stupid incident. Then we will call Eureka!
To quote Carl Sagan : I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.
To be able to talk to an intelligent and sufficiently technicially advanced species I would suggest we first try to reach that level ourselves. Especially the intelligent part.