aren't you effectively saying that these third world countries are somewhat at fault because they have the temerity to actually *want* (desire, demand), a more powerful computer that more closely conforms to the de-facto MS/x86 standard? No, I'm saying you are the apologist of greedy bastards who are actively spending large quantities of money to convince the decision makers of these nations that they should make wintel products the defacto monopoly in their country.
Not everyone's needs are met by the cheapest product, which is why Mercedes has market share (to use another car analogy). And this is the part where I call you names: You fucking asshole, this is a project to meet the educational needs of those less fortunate, not a fucking luxury, you capitalist pig-dog. They are trying to sell (through unethical, contract-breaching means) a downgraded business laptop to people who need a custom-designed low-power, all-terrain information-processing machine.
Those kids are not a market, this non-profit enterprise is not a business rival. If they want to sell their power-hungry laptop with their fancy CPUs, they can sell them to the kids when they grow up with computer skills and outgrow their XO, but paying a fee to get on the board of a charity (a tax-exempting fee, I'm sure) and then telling governments that being on the board has let them glean information that make them think the whole thing is going to implode (possibly with the ring of truth that knowingly sabotaging them brings) is indefensible, you monster.
Neroponte appears to be trying to limit consumer choices and stifle competition. Before him, they had nothing. He made them an offer, and now Intel piggybacks on his effort and tries to weasel a deal to have more expensive machine, meaning that fewer children will get access to an educational machine (but hey, Intel gets to make more millions in profit, which is what really matters, huh?).
And all you can do is rehash free market dogma to support the people who are undermining a non profit charity effort in order to divert the money involved to their own greedy pockets.
I'm sure Intel is going to get lots of hate posts here. And most of that will be because a lot of people fail to see one important issue.
Intel is a for-profit corporation beholden to its stock holders...no profit, stock holders get pissed, executives get thrown out. OLPC is a non-profit that doesn't have to worry about making money, and in fact can lose money as needed...no one is looking for a profit. And Intel saw that OLPC was doing charity, and that this charity involved a lot of money, and Intel thought "we can funnel all that precious, precious money our way, even if this means less children get access to computers!"
And this is why I now hate Intel and wish them harm. They are actively trying to get fewer children to have access to computers because they want more money for themselves. I hope they get leprosy, the bastards.
AMD, Apple, IBM, Intel... these are just companies trying to outsmart the competition. You don't seriously think the Intel board sat down and said, "hey let's maliciously fuck-over the OLPC project"? That would take a special brand of evil, the kind that is only occurs naturally in Redmond. 1- If you're gonna bitch about godwinning through M$, don't do it yourself in conclusion to your post.
2- They aren't trying to outsmart the competition, they saw that a charitable endeavor was moving large amounts of cash, and they thouhgt "hey, we want that money!", they are evil, and they should be stopped.
Graffiti is fun, you get to draw things. Pretty things, if you're good. Let me fix that for you:
Microsoft Paint is fun, you get to draw things. Pretty things, if you're good. It's not paint, it's a simple round brush, but it has transparencies. AND YOU GET TO SHOW OFF, because the whole point is that it's a social thing. Which, I shouldn't be surprised, is not readily understood by the/. crowd.
>Anecdote: So this girl I know in meatspace asks me if I'm coming to her party, I don't know what party she meant...
This is where I would pull out a pencil and get the details of when and where the party was. I suppose it is marginally easier to say, "Oh, go check out my facebook page for the details" so you don't have to write anything down, but it doesn't seem to be/that/ huge of a thing to me Well we didn't have to stop the social event to find pen, paper, and to write things down, have her spell it out over the music, etc. It seriously was a huge improvement over the regular party planning procedure.
I can't figure out what it's for. It's for organizing parties.
Since most ISPs these days give you a 5MB or so space where you can make a little web page if you want, I don't know why people don't just use that, except I guess they don't know how to make web pages. Because the point is the social network.
Anecdote: So this girl I know in meatspace asks me if I'm coming to her party, I don't know what party she meant, we discuss the fact that I'm not in her facebook friends, the following day we digitize our friendship, and I finally see the event page (limited to her friends) with all the relevant details and a handy "coming/not/maybe" RSVP system. You get to see who's going to the party, who isn't, and the whole thing is done with a nice central website and user friendly interface.
P.S. Also, it's a great channel for attention-whoring.
i should have been clearer that the two points were unrelated.
where did he say God created the universe?
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
there. You need to learn what an "allegory" is. He clearly stated he did not believe in a god as in a supernatural individual, but in Spinoza's god: By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite -- that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality. Explanation -- I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation.
You should read a bit abut epistemology. Or any book about knowing God. Check a good systematic theology - won't have a thing there about needing science.
You should read something with some science in it. Might stop you from saying things like:
The relationship between me and my brother has nothing to do with science, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it is irrelevant. Because the relationship between you and your brother has to do with the following branches of science: Biology, sociology, and psychology.
here's the only one that matters to me in this discussion (although there are many more:
Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion."
Where, in that paragraph (the only one that matters to you in this discussion), does he say what you claim he said: "maintained that the universe was created by a deity"?
He said in that paragraph that science does not replace religion. That is far from maintaining that the universe was created by a deity. All he is saying is * Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us.
* The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God.
That is what he has to say about religion and god: Societies create gods and religion to ease their existential pain. This is what he has to say about his own belief: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
You take a statement about the coexistence of religion and science, and you twist it to mean the opposite of what he expressed quite plainly. Stop that. Don't try to twist one of his statements to mean something else than what he said clearly, when he says religion and science can coexist, he doesn't mean he thinks a sky daddy is watching over his test tubes, he means that: "The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it."
His religious side means reverence to the world in all it's rational glory, not the worship of an invisible superbeing. He's very clear about that.
Public education, science education in particular, should not mention gods at all. ...and then Benjamin Franklin bravely stole the the secret of Mjolnir from Thor, and with it he forged the first lightning rod.
from what i've gleaned over the course of the morning, einstein denied belief in God's interest in mankind's day to day affairs ("a personal God"), but maintained that the universe was created by a deity. It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. -Einstein
It was a coincidence I couldn't ignore. [...] I consider my logic to be one of my strongest characteristics. A coincidence does not prove a relationship, but related events may be expected to have a higher index of coincidence. From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. The odds that two people share a birthday, for example, reaches 50% with a group of just 22.
Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events which occur in a meaningful manner, but which are causally unrelated. In order to be synchronous, the events must be related to one another conceptually, and the chance that they would occur together by random chance must be very small.
Your logic needs work: You reached out to someone with the same musical tastes as you and it turns out they have the same cultural background as you. You were an emotional wreck when that happened and you imbued that mundane event with a lot of personal meaning. The fact that you and that other person felt the same need to get in touch with each other after the same amount of time is more telling to the sympathetic mechanisms of human social interaction than they are to the metaphysical possibility that an invisible third party motivated your German friend to act in response to your telepathic request.
wow. ok. so einsteinIt was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. -Einstein
The idea of God was around before we understood much Civilizations and agriculture predate monotheism. Your understanding of ancient beliefs is tenuous, at best.
It is perfectly possible for someone to "think like a scientist" and also have strong religious faith, and there is a long list of scientists who have done so, including the "father of physics" Isaac Newton. He was also high on mercury vapors from believing in alchemy. Just because you're good at math doesn't mean everything you believe is true.
in the bible (old testament, moses exodus part?) somewhere, i dont remember reading about asteroids in that book Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens.
Slashdot Mirror
Those kids are not a market, this non-profit enterprise is not a business rival. If they want to sell their power-hungry laptop with their fancy CPUs, they can sell them to the kids when they grow up with computer skills and outgrow their XO, but paying a fee to get on the board of a charity (a tax-exempting fee, I'm sure) and then telling governments that being on the board has let them glean information that make them think the whole thing is going to implode (possibly with the ring of truth that knowingly sabotaging them brings) is indefensible, you monster.
Has it occurred to you that the world's poorest children need a hell of a lot more than a laptop?
In my country (Mexico) there are many, many poor children who need health-care, food, clothing and education
How many text books can you carry in one laptop, smartass?He made them an offer, and now Intel piggybacks on his effort and tries to weasel a deal to have more expensive machine, meaning that fewer children will get access to an educational machine (but hey, Intel gets to make more millions in profit, which is what really matters, huh?).
And all you can do is rehash free market dogma to support the people who are undermining a non profit charity effort in order to divert the money involved to their own greedy pockets.
And they have no business getting in the way of a charity.OLPC is a charity, not a business.
Intel is a business, not a charity.
Intel is a for-profit corporation beholden to its stock holders...no profit, stock holders get pissed, executives get thrown out. OLPC is a non-profit that doesn't have to worry about making money, and in fact can lose money as needed...no one is looking for a profit. And Intel saw that OLPC was doing charity, and that this charity involved a lot of money, and Intel thought "we can funnel all that precious, precious money our way, even if this means less children get access to computers!"
And this is why I now hate Intel and wish them harm. They are actively trying to get fewer children to have access to computers because they want more money for themselves. I hope they get leprosy, the bastards.
Isn't that just some Godwin variant?
AMD, Apple, IBM, Intel... these are just companies trying to outsmart the competition. You don't seriously think the Intel board sat down and said, "hey let's maliciously fuck-over the OLPC project"? That would take a special brand of evil, the kind that is only occurs naturally in Redmond. 1- If you're gonna bitch about godwinning through M$, don't do it yourself in conclusion to your post.
2- They aren't trying to outsmart the competition, they saw that a charitable endeavor was moving large amounts of cash, and they thouhgt "hey, we want that money!", they are evil, and they should be stopped.
Pretty things, if you're good. Let me fix that for you:
Microsoft Paint is fun, you get to draw things.
Pretty things, if you're good. It's not paint, it's a simple round brush, but it has transparencies.
AND YOU GET TO SHOW OFF, because the whole point is that it's a social thing. Which, I shouldn't be surprised, is not readily understood by the
This is where I would pull out a pencil and get the details of when and where the party was. I suppose it is marginally easier to say, "Oh, go check out my facebook page for the details" so you don't have to write anything down, but it doesn't seem to be
It seriously was a huge improvement over the regular party planning procedure.
Anecdote: So this girl I know in meatspace asks me if I'm coming to her party, I don't know what party she meant, we discuss the fact that I'm not in her facebook friends, the following day we digitize our friendship, and I finally see the event page (limited to her friends) with all the relevant details and a handy "coming/not/maybe" RSVP system.
You get to see who's going to the party, who isn't, and the whole thing is done with a nice central website and user friendly interface.
P.S. Also, it's a great channel for attention-whoring.
Pretty things, if you're good.
where did he say God created the universe?
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
there. You need to learn what an "allegory" is. He clearly stated he did not believe in a god as in a supernatural individual, but in Spinoza's god: By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite -- that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.
Explanation -- I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation.
He means the universe, not a person.
Religions have rituals, atheism is just a belief.
You should read a bit abut epistemology. Or any book about knowing God. Check a good systematic theology - won't have a thing there about needing science.
You should read something with some science in it. Might stop you from saying things like: The relationship between me and my brother has nothing to do with science, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it is irrelevant. Because the relationship between you and your brother has to do with the following branches of science: Biology, sociology, and psychology.And you should know this.
He said in that paragraph that science does not replace religion. That is far from maintaining that the universe was created by a deity. All he is saying is * Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us.
* The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God.
That is what he has to say about religion and god: Societies create gods and religion to ease their existential pain.
This is what he has to say about his own belief: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
You take a statement about the coexistence of religion and science, and you twist it to mean the opposite of what he expressed quite plainly. Stop that.
Don't try to twist one of his statements to mean something else than what he said clearly, when he says religion and science can coexist, he doesn't mean he thinks a sky daddy is watching over his test tubes, he means that: "The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it."
His religious side means reverence to the world in all it's rational glory, not the worship of an invisible superbeing. He's very clear about that.
-Einstein
You. Were. Lied. To.
Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events which occur in a meaningful manner, but which are causally unrelated. In order to be synchronous, the events must be related to one another conceptually, and the chance that they would occur together by random chance must be very small.
Your logic needs work: You reached out to someone with the same musical tastes as you and it turns out they have the same cultural background as you. You were an emotional wreck when that happened and you imbued that mundane event with a lot of personal meaning.
The fact that you and that other person felt the same need to get in touch with each other after the same amount of time is more telling to the sympathetic mechanisms of human social interaction than they are to the metaphysical possibility that an invisible third party motivated your German friend to act in response to your telepathic request.
-Einstein
Your understanding of ancient beliefs is tenuous, at best.
Just because you're good at math doesn't mean everything you believe is true.
Those are the best kind!