It is 10:15 am and someone is just now getting to work. I have been here an hour. One other guy got here at 7:30 like he always does. Our three other employees plus the boss are not here yet.

It has just dawned on me that at my company, only one of us actually works a full 40 hour week. (The guy who was here at 7:30.) I don't. I thought about it.

I meander in here around 9:15 every morning, wander to the coffeepot, make coffee (the 7:30 guy brings his own), wander to my desk, read the news, read /., check my email, engage in some personal correspondance, engage in some business correspondance, and am usually actually working by 10:00. I eat lunch either at 11:30 or 1:00 (I dislike waiting in lines, so this manages to keep me safe from the lunch crowd at the local restaurants). Then I leave at five, six, seven, whatever suits me, depends on how much I enjoy what I'm doing.

Looking at those hours, you'd think, well, if you stay until seven you're working enough, but upon reflection, seven is rare. Eight, nine or ten happen occasionally, but that's when I'm working on a big project that actually has a due date. Most of my stuff is just kind of work you do and should get done at some point.

And so I wonder, does everyone else out in the world work their 40 hours? Should I be feeling like I'm cheating the company (when I am beating the norm so clearly)? Should I be making a more honest effort to put in more hours? One thing is for sure. I am not overworked. I am blessed.

Is it just me or do OS choices really mean basically nothing? As of late, you click pretty widgets no matter what kind you pick, you have icons on the desktop, and you have to make your own macros to avoid having to pick up the mouse.

I do not have any friends that are die hard anythings. We can use whatever we happen to have in front of us. That doesn't mean we don't have preferences. I for instance, appreciate an OS that gives me a text editor, a lot of playable games, IM, a good mp3 player, cd writer, spreadsheet application, database appliation, email application, and web browser. What's that? You say I can pick any OS I choose and have all of those? So I might as well pick the one that either A.) is cheapest, B.) provides the most support to a techno-not like myself or C.) consoles my conscience in that I am not donating my money to the hoard of a dragonous MNC (multi-national corporation)?

That's my point. They are virtually indistinguishable in terms of functionality. I do however, still have budgetary constraints, and a conscience, not to mention friends who can provide a solution to the B.) dilemna. Therefore linux is the obvious choice. I don't think that I've ever heard either of these reasons for choosing linux over other OS's. Those that want to contribute code have an argument (they're using what they make), but those who don't have nothing.

Just wanted to take a minute to explain that while linux is the obvious OS choice, a reply of well, it's just way better is not really a great answer to the question of why.

There are people out there who say that God does not exist. Yes, athiests exist. They are very convinced in their arguments and some are so jaded and fervent as to dismiss everything that someone who believes contrary has to say even if it is on another topic entirely. If this is you, you may stop reading immediately. I won't be offended.

The grounds on which many athiests make their claim is that the existance of God is completely unprovable, and therefore unscientific. If there is no evidence, and no proof, of God's existance, then they are not going to believe. This is a logical conclusion. Except for one thing. They are not being scientific at all. The science that they are holding so high is not one that they are actually practicing.

There are two completely logical hypotheses that can be made regarding the existance of God. The first, is that God does not exist; the second is that God exists. We all know what you do with a hypothesis, right? The scientific method is pretty clear. You test it. Unfortunately, if you have the first hypothesis, God does not exist; there is nothing to test (no test can be designed), and you simply live out your life thinking you are right but not bothering to test at all and thus know you are right.

If you have make the second assumption, you can devise a test. You hypothesize that God exists and then take the next logical course of action and believe that God exists. In believing, you do all of the things that you think you should do given your belief. The test is whether or not you experience evidence of God given this. There are two possible outcomes: You either find evidence supporting your hypothesis, or you live your whole life given your belief, but never get any evidence.

What is there to lose? You have a lot to lose one way, and nothing to lose another way. I do not know a mathematician who would not change his method of proof based upon his ability to prove one thing or to disprove the converse. I also do not know anyone who has started this test and ended up in that life-long limbo that happens if you start the test and never get any evidence.

I wish the people that fall under that jaded athiest category I put forth in the beginning would stop appealing to science as their rationale for disbelief. If they don't believe in God because they don't want to, or can't, or have issues, fine; I have no problem there. But to appeal to science, when there isn't any there? I am beginning to resent these scientific believers for their completely biased observations and triviality. Are they trying to sound like scientists without actually being thus? The real scientists I know are the kinds of people who have decided they will test their hypotheses.

I just bought a house. Yes, on Saturday my great uncle, who built the house he lives in came and looked at the prospects and said that the one I got was the best value and moulah and required the least work (all things I had concluded but was denying to myself, as I wanted to buy the gigantahouse instead of the tinygalow).

Then, I managed to tick all my friends off. In one fell swoop. I posted to the church webboard and said that I wasn't sure I wanted to live forever, because forever is a really long time, a really long, boring, time, and I have been officially jumped all over. I should be, right now, retracting my statement, but I'm not going to because that involves compromise of my momentary conviction (actually, I'm already convinced they're right, but this is the principle I am standing on, stare decisis, you know).

At my church, it is actually okay to have some different beliefs. However, I have now learned, it is not okay for me to have different beliefs. I feel like at the humble and single age of 23, I must be approaching a grownup. People are beginning to expect things from me, and listen to me, and for crying out loud, I just bought a house. This is depressing beyond belief. After buying said house, I have proceeded to act as immaturely as possible. Just like around my birthday, when I tried to tell everyone I was turning 19, no one will believe me.