Dude, don't get a Dell!

My mother-in-law's computer started turning off, and she called Dell.  They told her she needed a new motherboard.

CPU without the heatsink.

Being the resident computer geek, I came down to take a look and found that the bracket which holds the heatsink fan assembly to the CPU was broken, so the heatsink was not properly pressing against the CPU, and thus was not cooling the CPU.  The CPU was overheating and turning off as a safety mechanism.

My plan was to get online and find the replacement part, and fix the computer.  My mother-in-law said "Why don't you call Dell.  They'll help." 

I hate calling tech support.  I loathe it.  Each time I try, I have problems regulating my blood pressure and fight to keep a civil tongue.  Call centers don't talk to tech savvy often, so their script and experience is geared to grandmothers, Luddites, and red necks.  As such, they won't listen, assume I'm wrong, and treat me like a moron.

So, after my mother-in-law prodded me a bit more, I gave up and called Dell for a replacement part.

I  spent almost an hour on the phone with them.  After explaining what I needed over and over again, and after sending them two pictures, they still didn't understand what I needed.

They kept on saying that the part I needed came with the heatsink fan.  It does not.  Their own website said so. 

After awhile, the fellow on the phone got his  "Technical Support Manager."   This guy looked at the picture of the CPU without the heatsink and said that  that the computer didn't have a CPU installed!  Anyone who has even a modicum of computer experience, can see the CPU is there!

The broken bracket.

Since my mother-in-law has never so much as opened her case, this is a case of a material defect.

A Dell illustration showing the bracket(green)

I found the part I needed for $7 in ten minutes on Google.  Thanks Dell.  Wonderful support staff there.  You have convinced me never, under any circumstances, buy a computer from you. 

Men of Science

I am a fundamental, born again Christian. I believe the Bible completely, and have no doubts as it its veracity.

I also am a science buff. I believe I have a scientific mindset as it comes to the natural world (as my poor bride will attest, when we disagree over a measurable item.)

I believe in science. The scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and predictive testing of said hypothesis) is one of the most powerful tools ever devised to eek out knowledge.

I also have seen two reasonable, articulate, rational people look at the same data and, due to presuppositions, come to different conclusions, both of which can be argued from the data.

While society looks at the pronouncements of scientists as gospel, I must humbly point out that it is not as cut a dried as one may think.

Hard fact #1, Science has presuppositions.

That's not an insult. All humans have presuppositions. Science is no different. We assume our senses are reliable, that our memories are correct, and that existence is uniform (i.e. what happened in the past, like the sun rising, should also occur in the future)


Modern science, though, has two philosophic presuppositions that under gird all they do.
They base all of their investigations first in  naturalism and materialism.  Naturalism is the belief that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature, while materialism is the belief that "the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.  These are the basic underpinnings of modern science.


Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that God exists (I do more than assume, but I digress). If God is real, how could science ever find evidence of His existence? Their primary axioms reject the possibility! What observations could be made that, considering the basic assumptions made, could be interpreted as proof of God?

Their predisposition makes all their observations and conclusions biased.

Hard fact #2, Evidence Doesn't Speak for itself.
Science starts with observation.  Some folks believe that ovservation alone disproves God.  A great example of this is distant starlight. 

We know that some stars are billions of light years away, right?  But how do we know it?  It's not like somebody got a really long tape measure and measured it.

There are two methods of measuring these distances.  First, you can take two readings from different parts in Earth's orbit and use mathematical triangulation (call parallax) to measure distances up to 1,600 light years (using space probe built for the purpose.)

For distances greater than that, they measure the brightness of the light from the stars and infer the distance from the brightness.  While they have tested this method against all near-by stars, and it holds correct, science is making an assumption of the uniform nature of the cosmos.

Once again, we have an assumption, albeit a well-meaning, logically concluded, and rigorously tested assumption that is spoken of as if it were proven fact, despite the fact that we have only observed the universe from our tiny spec.  Our sample size is just too small to know for 100% confidence.  For example, what if there were previously undetected phenomena which dims starlight that can't be detected from the angle in which we view the heavens?

So what is my point in all this?  Well, many state that science has disproved the Bible and has proven God doesn't exist, and that to believe in science means you can't believe in God.  All of that is utter nonsense.

Science doesn't disprove the Bible nor can science even speak to the existent of God.

Science isn't incompatible with faith.  Many of the greatest scientists that ever existed believed in God.  They saw the world as a manifest testimony of the glory of God.  They sought to explain the order and complexity they saw in the handiwork of God.

Don't let the assumptions sway you.

Fine Line

Ordained Church of God in Christ Pastor , Michael Salman, is now doing time in one my favorite jails, Maricopa county (home of the down-right awesome Sheriff Joe)

Why is the pastor in jail?  Well, he says it is for holding Bible studies in his home.  The county prosecutor says it for building and fire code violations.

Before we go into the Freedom of Religion and the Constitution, it is meet now to ask why public fire and building codes exist.

Simply put, fire codes exist because fires in public places can be deadly.  The record of  fatal fires is a very long and sad one.  Here are just a few for consideration.

• 1903 Iroquois Theatre fire which killed 605 people
• 1904 Triangle Shirtwaist fire killed 146 people 
• 1963 Golden Age Nursing Home fire, which killed 63 people
• 1980 MGM Grand Fire, which killed 85 people
• 1990 Happy Land fire that killed 87 people
• 2003 The Station Night Club fire killed 100 people

The only reason we don't have even more deaths than what we do is the fire codes that exist.  When something bad happens, people look at it and say "how can we prevent that from happening again?" 

The following are some examples of current fire code regulations which are designed to safeguard lives.

• doors that open with a push bar, and swing outwards, so panicking people can get out even if the people behind them are pushing them. 
• Battery-powered fire exits that will show those who are trying to get out where to go, even in a smoky, unfamiliar room.
• Multiple exits to the building, so when there is a fire people can get out fast.
• Sprinkler systems, designed to extinguish a fire or at least contain it long enough to evacuate a building 

Homes are generally excluded from these type of regulations. 

Therein is the rub.  Pastor Salman stated that he was having a private Bible Study in his home.  They weren't open to the public, and were attended by about 40 people a week.

His"home" was actually a 2,000 square foot building behind his home that, when built, was billed as a "game room."  That's only slightly smaller than the median US home size of 2,169 reported in the 2010 Census.

The City says that if 40 people gather every Sunday, it falls under the code as a public building.

So whose right? 

• Mr. Salman has a right, as an American, to worship and lead Bible studies in his home.
• The city of Phonex has a right and duty to make sure that public spaces are not death traps by enacting and enforcing fire codes, like every other city in America.
• Churches are expected to follow the law.  That inculdes building codes, American's with Disabilities Act, fire codes, and so forth

So the only question is whether Mr. Salman had a church or a Bible study.  My gut feeling is that  Mr. Salman had a church and either couldn't afford the money,  or didn't want to expend it to find a suitable commercial property for his church.  I think he was trying to slip in under technical definitions, so he could 'have his cake and eat it too.' 

But, who decides what is a "church?"  Could the government come in and tell me and my family that our family Bible studies are somehow illegal because they're not in a regulated space?  Who decides and what about our freedom of religion and freedom of assembly?

The main issues, to me, are what is a church and where does the power of government to regulate the lives of private citizens end?

In this case, I feel that Mr. Salman was wrong to knowingly disobey the law, and skirt the law. 

But, would he be in jail if he were leading the young democrats instead of a Bible study?

For the Kids

It seems that Scientologists  Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise are getting divorced.  TMZ (I am sorry for linking to TMZ) reports that they were ready to do battle until they learned how damaging battling parents could be for their daughter, Suri.  Now, they are working together to divorce amicably.

While I applaud all parents who realize the word doesn't rise and set above them (it's not all about you), and put their children before their own selfish wants, Suri be better off if they found a path to reconciliation.

After all, many studies (like this one, and this one, and this one.  These are by no means the only ones) show that children whose biological parents stay together do better in school, have healthier lives, and have more successful relationships then children of divorce parents.  The Children whose parents divorce are more prone to drop out of school, be abused, and be unemployed.  In nearly every category, children whose parents stay together do better than those familys who don't.

Tom and Katie, since you truly love your child and want to do whats best for her,  why not get into counseling, step over the inflated egos, lose the pride, drop the selfishness, and find a way to resolve your problems?