I do believe that your experience on the support side is a valid reason why you come in on the other side of this argument. In the support world, you're dealing with coverage against a schedule and a SLA. There, predictable schedules of arrivals and departures may be (but are not always) necessary to guarantee that adequate coverage is maintained. When dealing with developers, whose only real deadlines are the project milestone dates and deadlines, live in an entirely different world.
Managers who want the type of reliability you describe are working on an industrial-revolution-based (i.e. nineteenth century) model. Do people need to show up to meetings on time? Yes, but why do they need to be in the office at 7:30 AM? If they have a meeting, sure, but what's the purpose of the meeting? Is it so an old-school manager can micro-manage and tell his team what they will work on that day? Another response cited the need to be available to connect with other staff and systems that may only be available during traditional hours. That may be true, but why can't an employee touch base with others via phone, email, or IM? The big issue must be whether or not the work is getting done, not necessarily how the work is getting done.
If, as a manager, you don't know if your "work-at-home" employees are producing at an appropriate level, I'd wonder if you have a realistic picture of how any of your employees are producing. If you think that your traditional employees are more productive just because you see them in the office and meeting with their peers, you're in for a shock.
Based on the fact that no one modded your comment up as funny (if not insightful), I'm guessing that no one else undestands how it feels to have a moving target. "Build this," they say, only to come back later saying, "change this part," "add this feature," or "start over."
In reality, it is less a problem of the marketing department than of having a poorly designed project plan and scope. If the scope is not clearly defined, groups like marketing departments (think they) can come in an make changes anytime up to the release date. I wish more senior managers and project managers would stand up to the tyrrany of the moving target.
I give them everything they ask for........with the understanding that they will give me everything I ask for...
This is fine in theory, but I have yet to be in an organization where the IT manager is given carte blanche with budget dollars and staff resources. There are simply times you cannot give them what they want because it is not within your power, the scope of the project, or the budgetary constraints to give it to them. That's where the wheat splits from the chaff, because a good manager will be able to keep staff motivated even when the staff can't get everything they want.
Of course, if you are always telling them "no" you are asking for mass desertion. I find that being open about the reasons for a decision can make the difference between a subsequent moan-fest and employees who know I still support and appreciate them even if they are not pleased by the current circumstance.
Laptop battery life still sucks. Someone start working on a solar solution:)
I agree that battery life sucks for most laptops, but I've got a two year old Dell 600m that still gets 4+ hrs. on the battery with the WiFi on. A bay battery is wonderful for extending your mobile time. Otherwise, learn to plot where the AC outlets are located.
Even on campus, good WiFi hotspots are few and far between. We need hotspots that permit ssh tunneling, and encryption that works...
I'm sad for you. The campus where I teach (my second job) has a great wireless network, and I can VPN from there to my office anytime.
The home desktop will always be more comfortable, and as a result my files will always be there. Transferring them to the laptop on the fly is a pain when home upload speeds are so terrible with most ISP's
I think you'll change your mind eventually. I switched to a laptop about three years ago, and now I rarely (can't remember the last time) sit down at the desktop. In fact, I can't stand full sized keyboards anymore (and I have really big hands). As a result, all of my important files are on the laptop. The desktops at home have become the kids' homework and game centers. My wife an I are both laptop-only users these days.
You lose lots of weight when you are out and about, seeing as how you don't have a home food supply to compel you. A major plus.
Only true if your preferred wireless hotspot isn't in the local cafe, or in your backyard.
The public environment can be quite distracting, especially when you know people that always come and speak to you. Try and find a lonely corner, and suddenly finding a power supply and/or internet link can be challenging.
How true! I recommend getting as far away from your regular haunts as you can. Find your own fortress of solitude. I have a friend who is a pastor, and he's invited me to use the wireless access point in his office when I want a change of scenery. Beyond that, I have a list of my favorite corners, and I love using a Verizon aircard.
I had a good thing (albeit not as good as the author's) going before I took a new position in December. Now, I'm paying my dues in my new area. Before, it was working from home at least two days a week. Unlike some, I didn't have a problem shutting the machine down at the end of my day. I loved sitting out on the deck (in good weather) and enjoying the sun while handling my trouble tickets. Even better was going to the local cafe (in a small exurban town, equipped with a Verizon wireless card, and doing my work from there while clogging my arteries with a 3-egg bacon and swiss omelette! Most days, I was working by 6 AM and done by 2:30 PM. I figure I'll need to wait another six months before I can pitch a similar arrangement in my new digs (once they know I can be trusted to perform, no matter where I am).
The general policy is that the company's assets are for company business. That said, policy also allows for limited personal use, as long as it does not interfere with the primary business use of the company. This leaves enough room for most employees to happy, and it gives us the iron hammer if we ever need it (and we rarely have). We can block things outright at the perimeter if we need to do so (e.g. when there is a new virus propogating via email), but we generally trust our employees to be professionals. We train them heavily on security awareness, and we keep our network and client defenses current.
You're missing the fact that this just pushed the sunrise time back an hour. Last week, I had pre-dawn light to greet me. This morning, it was pitch black out. I had more lights on this morning than I did last week. What this change effectively did is to cause me to keep more lights on for a few more weeks in the morning.
This change makes no real sense in the northern latitidudes. During the peak of summer we will have daylight from 5 AM to nearly 11 PM. The did increase electricity consumption in the early mornings, because they've delayed morning light by an hour. Sure, most people may not be using their entertainment devices in the morning, but I'll argue that entertainment consumption will not be impacted by this change. Add up the millions of households that got up in the dark this morning, and you'll suddenly realize what a foolish and wasteful change this is/was. I doubt the proposed energy savings (if they materialize) will ever equal the costs carried by industry associated with preparing for and implementing this change.
I couldn't disagree more. If this change were proposed by a morning person, the clocks would have been set the other direction, so the sun would be up earlier rather than later.
Has anyone checked for a corresponding shift to accidents in the early morning? I was on the road at 5:45 AM CdT this morning. There were already two major accidents on the local highway system.
Whereas a week ago I would have already been seeing the pre-dawn glow, it was pitch black again this morning as I left. This far north (Minnesota, USA), daylight savings time makes almost no sense.
Any college or university that runs one of Microsoft's academic programs (or some other select agreement) typically has an option to seel copies of Office for a nominal fee. I purchased one when I completed my degree a few years ago. I was surprised that the license was not severely limited. It was a fantastic bargain to pick up MS Office Professional for $10 (USD).
I agree with many other posters that this is MS's "free crack" sample. The idea is to get the students hooked today, so they will buy an upgrade (or purchase a full version) in the future.
I don't know if it works for them in the long run. I won't pay retail/OEM prices for an office suite, and I won't be looking to make any changes until my current laptop dies. Then, if I can't find a refurbed Dell with Office already installed, I'll just load Open Office when it arrives.
Thefts do happen, but it's just a likely that the employee took it home and his kid is playing pac-man on it.
Which is probably alright for now, until the kid is older, starts nosing around the old files, or starts using some recovery tools. Then the data may be old, but it would still be fairly valuable to some parties, and it would be a just a bit more embarassing than being found in your boxers at the prom.
But further to that it seems to me that absolute measures could only really be knowable by the privileged observer as well.
I, first of all, wish to thank you for such a civil discourse. It is something I oft do not encounter here on/. I don't think we are too far apart in overall view (unless you are holding back on your specific vantage point), but even a fraction of a degree in trajectory can sperate travelers by thousands of miles if they travel long enough. I fully agree with your statement (above). That is a primary tenet of Christian faith--that only the Author has a true understanding of right and wrong. Those concepts are something for which mankind has a limited capacity to understand, and a tendency to reshape after our own desires.
I hold a part-time gig teaching technology at an area college. Many of the students try to argue for the correctness of their answers on an exam. From time to time there may be a factual error in the exams I provide, and in such cases I will cede the point, but most often the students argue their point based on how they interpreted the wording of a specific question. When dealing with specific technologies, especially vendor-specific ones, there is a defined set of nomenculture. A student who tries to argue that the DARPA/DOD is made of the seven layers of the OSI model is simply wrong (although arguing that the functions of the OSI model are represented in the DARPA model would be conceptually true). In such cases, students can argue until they are blue in the face--the instructor and the exam key determine which answers are correct.
Now, in this earthly realm, instructors make mistakes and tests may contain errors. I fall back to the notion that you can only determine direction by having a point of reference (e.g., North Star, relationship between time of day and shadow, magentic compass). I see an external moral standard as such a reference. Now, the tenets of Christianity teach that the Great and Holy God chose to reveal his code to mankind. While many strive to live by this code, my understand is that the code was given to make us realize that we will never be able to perfectly fulfil its requirements. Our failure leads us to an undestanding of the difference between God and man. This difference (most commonly called "sin") is what keeps us from God, and a knowledge of this rift presents us an opportunity to reconcile with him. You have no doubt heard the Christian view of salvation and how it is based on the actions of God in pursuing us rather than our own desire to pursue him, goodness, or morality [a great difference from any other world belief system wherein people try to please God or attain personal enlightenment], so I will not insult you by repeating those details here.
Moral relativism may well be the practice of much of the world, but broad acceptance does not make it right or true. Many people here in the U.S. falsify their tax documents every year (to varying degrees), but the widespread practice of such falsification only makes it prevalent--it does not make it right or good. "Right" is a binary concept--off or on, right or wrong. Accepting any "right" (whether subjective or objective) automatically defines something else as "wrong." Those who define "anything goes" as "right" contradict themselves, for their view precludes anyone who holds that there are definitive moral limits. They hold such people as "wrong." Relativism introduces the concept that trutch is subjective--that there is no real truth. The view I hold is that truth is absolute, it can be known, and it should be pursued.
I cannot argue that such (an absence of God negates reasons to act for the societal good) is true in and of itself, for some may choose to act in a moral manner apart from acceptance of God. But to what end? If there is no God (and none of the "baggage" associated with him: a divine standard, eternal life, etc.), then how can one define right and wrong? A good friend once tried to convince me that moral relativism is true (that each individual can decide what is right or wrong for himself/herself). It all came down to personal choice and the individual's choice determined what was "right" for that person. Drugs use was only a personal choice. Abortion was only a personal choice. Lying was only a personal choice. Bigomy was only a personal choice. No matter what moral situation I presented, my friend opted for subjective morality. Then, out of desperation, I asked her if it was okay for a 30 year-old man to forecably have sexual intercourse with a six year-old girl. She was immediately outraged at the thought and was very explicit about how such a "pervert" should be punnished. My reply to her was terse: "Well, the man who raped my niece didn't think it was wrong, so who are you to impose your values on him!" She said it was not a fair argument, and then she decided that she had to head home.
At the very minimum, acknowledging God is an acknowledgement of a morality that is beyond subjective human choice. If there is no God, then moral relativism is a valid option, leading to the logical conclusion that there is no real (intrinsic) reason to act for the societal good.
[My statement to my friend regarding my neice was not hypothetical. Sadly, it happened.]
Given that this is Wal-Mart, I don't think it's lazy coding. I believe it is an intentional way to limit their development dollars. Always low prices--always--even if it means you will hamstring some potential customers.
If you ask me, Wal-Mart would limit the types of vehicles that may park in its lot if they felt it would mean better profits and wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot. You can fit more stalls in the lot if you paint them to fit subcompacts, rather than SUVs or the big 15-passenger van I drive for the family. I can imagine the gears turning in the heads of WM's executives--"By making the stalls smaller, we can get 15% more customers in the store at peak times. It won't matter if some customers with those huge SUVs can't shop here. They didn't seem to like our upscale products anyway. Now we just need to petition for a variance from the local fire codes..."
And I think it is important to note that when you say
That's why there isn't, and never has been a single human that was/isn't religious.
you are including those who claim there is no God. The confessed atheist's religion is Atheism--a staunch belief that there is no God and that man (self) is ultimately the only thing that matters. If there is no God, then there is no real reason to act for the societal good. Just go out and rape, steal, seek pleasure for yourself, and do whatever it is you want to do... I find it funny that most atheists, however, still have a pretty firm moral code. Why? If there is no God, then there is no one to hold you accountable. Go for the gusto! Kill off your neighbors and set yourself up as king of your block (or of the world). Most would argue that they would not do such things for they are wrong. What makes them wrong? The laws of nature do not make them wrong. Survival of the fittest would suggest that whichever of us can figure out ways to survive while wiping the weak off the face of the earth would be the winner. Come on people! Open your eyes! There is more here than meets the eye!
I will admit that this is the place where understanding breaks down. The Christian tenet is that God exists and nothing else exists apart from him. Far greater minds than mine have struggled with this. It expresses that all of creation has a cause, but that God is causeless (If, for example, God required a platform on which to stand one could argue that the platform is greater than God--or that God is less than all-powerful, etc.). I cannot comprehend this. My knowledge of God is such, however, that this question no longer bothers me--I have enough experiential evidence of his existence to make me at peace with the question.
Do you not have eyes? Consider the complexity of this world and all around us. All things function within a set of laws and display order. Surely when you look at a fine scupture, an architectural wonder, or read a fine book you know that there was a sculptor, architect, or author because you have seen the creation. You would not question that the sculptor did not exist, even though science tells you that wind and water cause erosion. Your eyes tell you that the creation (the sculpture) is too complex to have come about from such chance causes. Do chance, erosion, and other natural forces play a role in this world? Yes! But can you really believe that all that exists around us came into play solely by some cosmic accident? If that is what you believe, then which of us is exhibiting a greater faith?
My God is the only God--the One True God--and he is a rewarder of those who dilligently seek him. Ask him to reveal himself to you. Open the Christian scriptures (http://net.bible.org/bible.php) and ask him to make himself known. Why the Christian scriptures? All other religeous systems provide a means whereby mankind must please God or attain enlightenment. The claims of my God--the God of the Hebrews and the Christians--are that no one can earn his favor or earn their way to eternal life. He is The God Who Saves. He has paved a way, and the way is open to all, but not all will accept his invitation, because it seems like folly to those who do not believe (yes, I know I sound like a fool, but I am willingly a foor for Him!).
What has contraindicated the existence of God? The more and more complex we deem this universe to be, the more complex the laws that govern it, the more I come to understand that a grand intelligence set it in motion. Look at any complex machinery and you come to appreciate its designer. Complex systems of interdependencies do not come to exist on their own, but are always a reflection of some intelligence.
In the past, some have tried to reason away the Creator by using an illustration of a blind watchmaker who can put together an exquisite timepiece without being able to see the parts or exactly how they fit together. That example ignores the watchmaker's intelligence and the fact that he learned the craft from someone (mentor) or something (braile book) else. For the example to work to discredit the concept of a creator, one would need to take a bag, fill it with the raw materials for a watch (not the refined parts that were created by a craftman's skill), and shake the bag until one could pour out the contents and find a working timepiece.
I think both approaches here are unbalanced. I believe God made everything. Because I believe God made everything, I study the physical world to try to understand the physical world, so I can have a better understanding of the nature of God. The more science discovers regarding the vast complexity of this existence, the greater reverence I have for God.
To me, God is not an excuse to abandon reason. God is the reason we should reason--so we may better understand his nature through nature.
I recently moved from a position I held for nearly eight years to another department in the same enterprise. I gave three weeks notice. During the first week, I tried to resolve all of my outstanding tasks. During the second week, I spent time review the documentation I left for the systems I supported and I informed other contacts, vendors, and customers that a change was coming (including who their new contact would be). During the final week, I spent time with my immediate peers, offering to help them with their tasks, providing them with final status reports on my remaining projects, and asking them if they could think of anything else I could provide for them.
Now, I'm still in the same building, so they know where to reach me, but I would have done the same if I were leaving the company. My old manager planned to rehire, but that was over two months ago. In the interim, my old peers have picked up the slack. Had I not kept them in mind as I planned to leave, I doubt we would still be on good terms.
So many of the posts read like "screw others before they screw you." What about an older ideal--treat others the way you would like to have been treated.
Slashdot Mirror
I do believe that your experience on the support side is a valid reason why you come in on the other side of this argument. In the support world, you're dealing with coverage against a schedule and a SLA. There, predictable schedules of arrivals and departures may be (but are not always) necessary to guarantee that adequate coverage is maintained. When dealing with developers, whose only real deadlines are the project milestone dates and deadlines, live in an entirely different world.
Managers who want the type of reliability you describe are working on an industrial-revolution-based (i.e. nineteenth century) model. Do people need to show up to meetings on time? Yes, but why do they need to be in the office at 7:30 AM? If they have a meeting, sure, but what's the purpose of the meeting? Is it so an old-school manager can micro-manage and tell his team what they will work on that day? Another response cited the need to be available to connect with other staff and systems that may only be available during traditional hours. That may be true, but why can't an employee touch base with others via phone, email, or IM? The big issue must be whether or not the work is getting done, not necessarily how the work is getting done.
If, as a manager, you don't know if your "work-at-home" employees are producing at an appropriate level, I'd wonder if you have a realistic picture of how any of your employees are producing. If you think that your traditional employees are more productive just because you see them in the office and meeting with their peers, you're in for a shock.
Based on the fact that no one modded your comment up as funny (if not insightful), I'm guessing that no one else undestands how it feels to have a moving target. "Build this," they say, only to come back later saying, "change this part," "add this feature," or "start over."
In reality, it is less a problem of the marketing department than of having a poorly designed project plan and scope. If the scope is not clearly defined, groups like marketing departments (think they) can come in an make changes anytime up to the release date. I wish more senior managers and project managers would stand up to the tyrrany of the moving target.
Of course, if you are always telling them "no" you are asking for mass desertion. I find that being open about the reasons for a decision can make the difference between a subsequent moan-fest and employees who know I still support and appreciate them even if they are not pleased by the current circumstance.
I had a good thing (albeit not as good as the author's) going before I took a new position in December. Now, I'm paying my dues in my new area. Before, it was working from home at least two days a week. Unlike some, I didn't have a problem shutting the machine down at the end of my day. I loved sitting out on the deck (in good weather) and enjoying the sun while handling my trouble tickets. Even better was going to the local cafe (in a small exurban town, equipped with a Verizon wireless card, and doing my work from there while clogging my arteries with a 3-egg bacon and swiss omelette! Most days, I was working by 6 AM and done by 2:30 PM. I figure I'll need to wait another six months before I can pitch a similar arrangement in my new digs (once they know I can be trusted to perform, no matter where I am).
The general policy is that the company's assets are for company business. That said, policy also allows for limited personal use, as long as it does not interfere with the primary business use of the company. This leaves enough room for most employees to happy, and it gives us the iron hammer if we ever need it (and we rarely have). We can block things outright at the perimeter if we need to do so (e.g. when there is a new virus propogating via email), but we generally trust our employees to be professionals. We train them heavily on security awareness, and we keep our network and client defenses current.
If it was sent from a client on our network, we have ways of finding it. Nothing that passes through a PC goes without a trace.
You're missing the fact that this just pushed the sunrise time back an hour. Last week, I had pre-dawn light to greet me. This morning, it was pitch black out. I had more lights on this morning than I did last week. What this change effectively did is to cause me to keep more lights on for a few more weeks in the morning. This change makes no real sense in the northern latitidudes. During the peak of summer we will have daylight from 5 AM to nearly 11 PM. The did increase electricity consumption in the early mornings, because they've delayed morning light by an hour. Sure, most people may not be using their entertainment devices in the morning, but I'll argue that entertainment consumption will not be impacted by this change. Add up the millions of households that got up in the dark this morning, and you'll suddenly realize what a foolish and wasteful change this is/was. I doubt the proposed energy savings (if they materialize) will ever equal the costs carried by industry associated with preparing for and implementing this change.
I couldn't disagree more. If this change were proposed by a morning person, the clocks would have been set the other direction, so the sun would be up earlier rather than later.
Has anyone checked for a corresponding shift to accidents in the early morning? I was on the road at 5:45 AM CdT this morning. There were already two major accidents on the local highway system. Whereas a week ago I would have already been seeing the pre-dawn glow, it was pitch black again this morning as I left. This far north (Minnesota, USA), daylight savings time makes almost no sense.
Any college or university that runs one of Microsoft's academic programs (or some other select agreement) typically has an option to seel copies of Office for a nominal fee. I purchased one when I completed my degree a few years ago. I was surprised that the license was not severely limited. It was a fantastic bargain to pick up MS Office Professional for $10 (USD). I agree with many other posters that this is MS's "free crack" sample. The idea is to get the students hooked today, so they will buy an upgrade (or purchase a full version) in the future. I don't know if it works for them in the long run. I won't pay retail/OEM prices for an office suite, and I won't be looking to make any changes until my current laptop dies. Then, if I can't find a refurbed Dell with Office already installed, I'll just load Open Office when it arrives.
So now SETI also stands for "Search for Egregious Thieving Idiots"
I hold a part-time gig teaching technology at an area college. Many of the students try to argue for the correctness of their answers on an exam. From time to time there may be a factual error in the exams I provide, and in such cases I will cede the point, but most often the students argue their point based on how they interpreted the wording of a specific question. When dealing with specific technologies, especially vendor-specific ones, there is a defined set of nomenculture. A student who tries to argue that the DARPA/DOD is made of the seven layers of the OSI model is simply wrong (although arguing that the functions of the OSI model are represented in the DARPA model would be conceptually true). In such cases, students can argue until they are blue in the face--the instructor and the exam key determine which answers are correct.
Now, in this earthly realm, instructors make mistakes and tests may contain errors. I fall back to the notion that you can only determine direction by having a point of reference (e.g., North Star, relationship between time of day and shadow, magentic compass). I see an external moral standard as such a reference. Now, the tenets of Christianity teach that the Great and Holy God chose to reveal his code to mankind. While many strive to live by this code, my understand is that the code was given to make us realize that we will never be able to perfectly fulfil its requirements. Our failure leads us to an undestanding of the difference between God and man. This difference (most commonly called "sin") is what keeps us from God, and a knowledge of this rift presents us an opportunity to reconcile with him. You have no doubt heard the Christian view of salvation and how it is based on the actions of God in pursuing us rather than our own desire to pursue him, goodness, or morality [a great difference from any other world belief system wherein people try to please God or attain personal enlightenment], so I will not insult you by repeating those details here.
Moral relativism may well be the practice of much of the world, but broad acceptance does not make it right or true. Many people here in the U.S. falsify their tax documents every year (to varying degrees), but the widespread practice of such falsification only makes it prevalent--it does not make it right or good. "Right" is a binary concept--off or on, right or wrong. Accepting any "right" (whether subjective or objective) automatically defines something else as "wrong." Those who define "anything goes" as "right" contradict themselves, for their view precludes anyone who holds that there are definitive moral limits. They hold such people as "wrong." Relativism introduces the concept that trutch is subjective--that there is no real truth. The view I hold is that truth is absolute, it can be known, and it should be pursued.
I cannot argue that such (an absence of God negates reasons to act for the societal good) is true in and of itself, for some may choose to act in a moral manner apart from acceptance of God. But to what end? If there is no God (and none of the "baggage" associated with him: a divine standard, eternal life, etc.), then how can one define right and wrong? A good friend once tried to convince me that moral relativism is true (that each individual can decide what is right or wrong for himself/herself). It all came down to personal choice and the individual's choice determined what was "right" for that person. Drugs use was only a personal choice. Abortion was only a personal choice. Lying was only a personal choice. Bigomy was only a personal choice. No matter what moral situation I presented, my friend opted for subjective morality. Then, out of desperation, I asked her if it was okay for a 30 year-old man to forecably have sexual intercourse with a six year-old girl. She was immediately outraged at the thought and was very explicit about how such a "pervert" should be punnished. My reply to her was terse: "Well, the man who raped my niece didn't think it was wrong, so who are you to impose your values on him!" She said it was not a fair argument, and then she decided that she had to head home.
At the very minimum, acknowledging God is an acknowledgement of a morality that is beyond subjective human choice. If there is no God, then moral relativism is a valid option, leading to the logical conclusion that there is no real (intrinsic) reason to act for the societal good.
[My statement to my friend regarding my neice was not hypothetical. Sadly, it happened.]
Given that this is Wal-Mart, I don't think it's lazy coding. I believe it is an intentional way to limit their development dollars. Always low prices--always--even if it means you will hamstring some potential customers.
If you ask me, Wal-Mart would limit the types of vehicles that may park in its lot if they felt it would mean better profits and wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot. You can fit more stalls in the lot if you paint them to fit subcompacts, rather than SUVs or the big 15-passenger van I drive for the family. I can imagine the gears turning in the heads of WM's executives--"By making the stalls smaller, we can get 15% more customers in the store at peak times. It won't matter if some customers with those huge SUVs can't shop here. They didn't seem to like our upscale products anyway. Now we just need to petition for a variance from the local fire codes..."
Did I mention that I once worked for Wal-Mart?
I will admit that this is the place where understanding breaks down. The Christian tenet is that God exists and nothing else exists apart from him. Far greater minds than mine have struggled with this. It expresses that all of creation has a cause, but that God is causeless (If, for example, God required a platform on which to stand one could argue that the platform is greater than God--or that God is less than all-powerful, etc.). I cannot comprehend this. My knowledge of God is such, however, that this question no longer bothers me--I have enough experiential evidence of his existence to make me at peace with the question.
Do you not have eyes? Consider the complexity of this world and all around us. All things function within a set of laws and display order. Surely when you look at a fine scupture, an architectural wonder, or read a fine book you know that there was a sculptor, architect, or author because you have seen the creation. You would not question that the sculptor did not exist, even though science tells you that wind and water cause erosion. Your eyes tell you that the creation (the sculpture) is too complex to have come about from such chance causes. Do chance, erosion, and other natural forces play a role in this world? Yes! But can you really believe that all that exists around us came into play solely by some cosmic accident? If that is what you believe, then which of us is exhibiting a greater faith?
Can there not be experiential proofs to belief? Not to the mind that holds itself as the supreme arbiter of truth.
My God is the only God--the One True God--and he is a rewarder of those who dilligently seek him. Ask him to reveal himself to you. Open the Christian scriptures (http://net.bible.org/bible.php) and ask him to make himself known. Why the Christian scriptures? All other religeous systems provide a means whereby mankind must please God or attain enlightenment. The claims of my God--the God of the Hebrews and the Christians--are that no one can earn his favor or earn their way to eternal life. He is The God Who Saves. He has paved a way, and the way is open to all, but not all will accept his invitation, because it seems like folly to those who do not believe (yes, I know I sound like a fool, but I am willingly a foor for Him!).
What has contraindicated the existence of God? The more and more complex we deem this universe to be, the more complex the laws that govern it, the more I come to understand that a grand intelligence set it in motion. Look at any complex machinery and you come to appreciate its designer. Complex systems of interdependencies do not come to exist on their own, but are always a reflection of some intelligence.
In the past, some have tried to reason away the Creator by using an illustration of a blind watchmaker who can put together an exquisite timepiece without being able to see the parts or exactly how they fit together. That example ignores the watchmaker's intelligence and the fact that he learned the craft from someone (mentor) or something (braile book) else. For the example to work to discredit the concept of a creator, one would need to take a bag, fill it with the raw materials for a watch (not the refined parts that were created by a craftman's skill), and shake the bag until one could pour out the contents and find a working timepiece.
I think both approaches here are unbalanced. I believe God made everything. Because I believe God made everything, I study the physical world to try to understand the physical world, so I can have a better understanding of the nature of God. The more science discovers regarding the vast complexity of this existence, the greater reverence I have for God.
To me, God is not an excuse to abandon reason. God is the reason we should reason--so we may better understand his nature through nature.
From what I can tell, they're really trying to outlaw stupidity and carelessness. Penalize carelessness, yes, but outlaw stupidity?...
...If they think they have a prison overcrowding problem now, just wait...
As Albert Einstein once said [paraphrased]: there is only one difference between stupidity and genius--genius has its limits.
I recently moved from a position I held for nearly eight years to another department in the same enterprise. I gave three weeks notice. During the first week, I tried to resolve all of my outstanding tasks. During the second week, I spent time review the documentation I left for the systems I supported and I informed other contacts, vendors, and customers that a change was coming (including who their new contact would be). During the final week, I spent time with my immediate peers, offering to help them with their tasks, providing them with final status reports on my remaining projects, and asking them if they could think of anything else I could provide for them.
Now, I'm still in the same building, so they know where to reach me, but I would have done the same if I were leaving the company. My old manager planned to rehire, but that was over two months ago. In the interim, my old peers have picked up the slack. Had I not kept them in mind as I planned to leave, I doubt we would still be on good terms.
So many of the posts read like "screw others before they screw you." What about an older ideal--treat others the way you would like to have been treated.