Nah, people in Ireland are too willing to put up with crap like this. We like to complain, just to neighbours, not people that will actually do something about it.
Allied to the fact that Eircom controls all the phone lines in the country (charging over â23/$30 a month for rental), and the fact that the state of cable and wireless broadband in Ireland is a shambles; I'm not sure Eircom will have much to worry about in terms of prospective customers.
Reminds me of the speed cameras - after years, just as the UK discovers that speed cameras do essentially nothing for road safety, Ireland plans to hand out a license to private companies to get hundreds installed.
That's a lot of money, introducing a lot of heartache - and for what? Is the goal educating the kids, or do you just get warm and fuzzy at the thought of a utopian macbook wielding society.
Laptops are not an end to education, they are a means. I would feel a lot more positive about the idea if there was some mention of what you plan to use computers for, rather than "computers are a part of out society, lets give our kids laptops". That's just irresponsible spending. Is your existing education system so good that this has become the best investment of such a large amount of time and money?
A more fundamental problem is a general lack of interest in science.
Insightful comment in general. When you take the meaning of science in it's truest form as a desire for knowledge, your comment shows that as a race we're shifting from a desire for knowledge to a desire for ignorance, which is particularly worrying.
"What is at work with these "divine selection" delusions is not metaphysics, or even determinism. It's ignorance of math, of the mechanics of consciousness, of the basics of selection."
"Creating more illusions just makes it harder, and makes something else even harder to understand and deal with. Though a little mystery is tolerable enough to appreciate its excitement, the mystery isn't the point. Especially if we just make up the mystery to confuse ourselves."
I think we're both dwelling on sidepoints here - these are the ones I'm dwelling on, since I find them offensive. Which I think is justified.
When I say you're wrong in declaring what you've said, I don't say it because what you've said is not true (which you have mistaken me for saying), you're wrong because the argument you use is no argument at all, you appear to be assuming somehow that all faiths are categorically made-up. Sure, probability indicates that they are, but it's just a probability, and certainly not a given, as you seem to be saying. This is pretty much the only thing you've said that I take issue with.
Lastly (I mean that), what I believe was never relevant to this argument. I'm certainly not arguing when you say the "certainty of metaphysical info is a fallacy", but neither does it make me insecure since we both agree that it is by nature, unprovable. However, you may (or may not) find it interesting/daft that I have more "belief" in my faith than in pretty much anything else. But please don't mistake this for elitism (it goes against my religion;) )
When you were talking about people creating illusions out of ignorance, you were talking about people like me. Naturally I am going to be offended, and not only that you're wrong.
You say "faith is just a way of knowing things without proof", yet you seem to know that any belief in God is a fallacy despite the fact that by it's nature this is an unprovable statement.
Furthermore, if you were to scientifically approach the notion of faith, you could only ever come to the conclusion that faith is a reasonable assumption. How far would you get if you couldn't assume the findings of co-scientists to be true? Even if you did choose to resolve your knowledge based only on your own conclusions, even doing this can only minimise the probability of being deceived, considering the absence of a theoretical absolute truth. Faith is not confined just to "religions".
Lastly, if I'm wrong then I'm destined to the same fate to every other person anyway (not that that's my reasoning). I don't expect you to accept my beliefs. However, I also don't expect ridicule from someone with an utterly half-baked, utterly assumptive notion about exactly what it is that I believe.
You make a logical argument until you get to the bit where you assume a negative proof. Even if I believe in God and accept unreasonable ideas as absolute fact, my views, even in their extremities come nowhere near the bigoted, prejudiced and grossly unscientific declaration that "faith" is an illusion that's the product of ignorance.
You may or may not be right, probability undoubtedly indicates the former. But what if that's not the case?
Or in other words there's no chance that we don't exist by chance?
You seem pretty sure of something you can never be scientifically sure of. What's the point of caring what people think or believe if it's all meaningless?
It also says that Jesus is a rock, and that he was good shepherd.
The thing about languages that are processed by transistors is that they tend to be literal, unlike languages we use. On the other hand, languages we use are ambiguous and as such, open to interpretation.
The bible is not a science book, and we don't get a definitive methodological account of creation. More importantly, people that believe it's true don't believe it's true because it proves itself scientifically.
Speaking for myself, the bible is true because of things that have happened in my own life that have compelled me beyond reason (and will) that God exists, and is the God the bible describes. As a consequence, the bible (being God's word) is absolute truth, although not always literal in writing style (for reasons mentioned).
I'm happy to admit that's bad scientific reasoning, I only mentioned it to try and show a train of thought. The funny thing though is that despite this, the scientific reasoning I try to rely on for everything else doesn't fly in the face of this lack of reason; rather it bolsters and compliments everything I read in the bible. Although for me that's no surprise.
That makes absolutely no sense. Why only 98% of users? Is there a special safe version of Windows that only 2% of people have? And what percentage of Linux users do you suppose are safe?
Pure and utter drivel, you make no point and everything you have said is fanboy FUD.
Well that might be the case if microsoft were the only people that could write drivers?
What's stopping asus and co. developing their own drivers like they've always done? Even I, as a consumer can streamline/incorporate whatever drivers I like to a windows cd.
My dad plays card games and tetris. I think as we get older, a) our imagination becomes stifled by greater experience of a world that is real and b) the time an average adult has and is willing to invest in games diminishes.
For these reasons I'd suggest as games mature they become less fantastical, and simpler in concept - or more or less the opposite of what you may imagine as a game maturing.
Slashdot Mirror
FATALITY!
I'm glad you're not my neighbour.
VLC player is your friend.
Nah, people in Ireland are too willing to put up with crap like this. We like to complain, just to neighbours, not people that will actually do something about it.
Allied to the fact that Eircom controls all the phone lines in the country (charging over â23/$30 a month for rental), and the fact that the state of cable and wireless broadband in Ireland is a shambles; I'm not sure Eircom will have much to worry about in terms of prospective customers.
Eircom adapts this voluntarily.
Reminds me of the speed cameras - after years, just as the UK discovers that speed cameras do essentially nothing for road safety, Ireland plans to hand out a license to private companies to get hundreds installed.
I hate some of the stuff on this Island.
LEAVE STEVE-NEY ALONE!!!!!1!!
That's the joke [/McBane]
That's a lot of money, introducing a lot of heartache - and for what? Is the goal educating the kids, or do you just get warm and fuzzy at the thought of a utopian macbook wielding society.
Laptops are not an end to education, they are a means. I would feel a lot more positive about the idea if there was some mention of what you plan to use computers for, rather than "computers are a part of out society, lets give our kids laptops". That's just irresponsible spending. Is your existing education system so good that this has become the best investment of such a large amount of time and money?
Who here
Unless that was irony.
I'm pretty sure the irony only surfaces with your own contribution.
1 GBP doesn't equal $2, it's not even as valuable as $1.5 at the minute.
A more fundamental problem is a general lack of interest in science.
Insightful comment in general. When you take the meaning of science in it's truest form as a desire for knowledge, your comment shows that as a race we're shifting from a desire for knowledge to a desire for ignorance, which is particularly worrying.
Cut him some slack, he's just a kid.
"What is at work with these "divine selection" delusions is not metaphysics, or even determinism. It's ignorance of math, of the mechanics of consciousness, of the basics of selection."
;) )
"Creating more illusions just makes it harder, and makes something else even harder to understand and deal with. Though a little mystery is tolerable enough to appreciate its excitement, the mystery isn't the point. Especially if we just make up the mystery to confuse ourselves."
I think we're both dwelling on sidepoints here - these are the ones I'm dwelling on, since I find them offensive. Which I think is justified.
When I say you're wrong in declaring what you've said, I don't say it because what you've said is not true (which you have mistaken me for saying), you're wrong because the argument you use is no argument at all, you appear to be assuming somehow that all faiths are categorically made-up. Sure, probability indicates that they are, but it's just a probability, and certainly not a given, as you seem to be saying. This is pretty much the only thing you've said that I take issue with.
Lastly (I mean that), what I believe was never relevant to this argument. I'm certainly not arguing when you say the "certainty of metaphysical info is a fallacy", but neither does it make me insecure since we both agree that it is by nature, unprovable. However, you may (or may not) find it interesting/daft that I have more "belief" in my faith than in pretty much anything else. But please don't mistake this for elitism (it goes against my religion
When you were talking about people creating illusions out of ignorance, you were talking about people like me. Naturally I am going to be offended, and not only that you're wrong.
You say "faith is just a way of knowing things without proof", yet you seem to know that any belief in God is a fallacy despite the fact that by it's nature this is an unprovable statement.
Furthermore, if you were to scientifically approach the notion of faith, you could only ever come to the conclusion that faith is a reasonable assumption. How far would you get if you couldn't assume the findings of co-scientists to be true? Even if you did choose to resolve your knowledge based only on your own conclusions, even doing this can only minimise the probability of being deceived, considering the absence of a theoretical absolute truth. Faith is not confined just to "religions".
Lastly, if I'm wrong then I'm destined to the same fate to every other person anyway (not that that's my reasoning). I don't expect you to accept my beliefs. However, I also don't expect ridicule from someone with an utterly half-baked, utterly assumptive notion about exactly what it is that I believe.
You make a logical argument until you get to the bit where you assume a negative proof. Even if I believe in God and accept unreasonable ideas as absolute fact, my views, even in their extremities come nowhere near the bigoted, prejudiced and grossly unscientific declaration that "faith" is an illusion that's the product of ignorance.
You may or may not be right, probability undoubtedly indicates the former. But what if that's not the case?
Or in other words there's no chance that we don't exist by chance?
You seem pretty sure of something you can never be scientifically sure of. What's the point of caring what people think or believe if it's all meaningless?
It also says that Jesus is a rock, and that he was good shepherd.
The thing about languages that are processed by transistors is that they tend to be literal, unlike languages we use. On the other hand, languages we use are ambiguous and as such, open to interpretation.
The bible is not a science book, and we don't get a definitive methodological account of creation. More importantly, people that believe it's true don't believe it's true because it proves itself scientifically.
Speaking for myself, the bible is true because of things that have happened in my own life that have compelled me beyond reason (and will) that God exists, and is the God the bible describes. As a consequence, the bible (being God's word) is absolute truth, although not always literal in writing style (for reasons mentioned).
I'm happy to admit that's bad scientific reasoning, I only mentioned it to try and show a train of thought. The funny thing though is that despite this, the scientific reasoning I try to rely on for everything else doesn't fly in the face of this lack of reason; rather it bolsters and compliments everything I read in the bible. Although for me that's no surprise.
That makes absolutely no sense. Why only 98% of users? Is there a special safe version of Windows that only 2% of people have? And what percentage of Linux users do you suppose are safe?
Pure and utter drivel, you make no point and everything you have said is fanboy FUD.
Just because Linux is free (mostly), that doesn't make it unethical for other people to sell an operating system.
Well that might be the case if microsoft were the only people that could write drivers?
What's stopping asus and co. developing their own drivers like they've always done? Even I, as a consumer can streamline/incorporate whatever drivers I like to a windows cd.
I'm sorry, but how can that be considered insightful unless you consider $50 for XP (retail) exorbitant?
My dad plays card games and tetris. I think as we get older, a) our imagination becomes stifled by greater experience of a world that is real and b) the time an average adult has and is willing to invest in games diminishes.
For these reasons I'd suggest as games mature they become less fantastical, and simpler in concept - or more or less the opposite of what you may imagine as a game maturing.
Yea and windows 7 won't be bloated, expensive and unreliable.
Not that that's what I'm saying, but I don't think speculation and newfounded faith in utopian America is going to make it happen.
And yet you're still here!
People have been sharing plans for electronic toys like this for years. How does it become news when some guy slaps an "open source" moniker on it?