Lappy new year!

leaskovski · 29 Nov 2009 at 22:36

Thats why we have computers in Librarys eh?

RDM · 29 Nov 2009 at 22:39

leaskovski said:
Thats why we have computers in Librarys eh?

Not overly practical for homework every night.

semi-pro waster · 29 Nov 2009 at 22:40

[TW]Fox;15422138 said:
There is simply no need to spend £528 to get a functioning, modern, internet ready computer in the home.

Possibly not although as has been expanded upon that figure isn't just for a computer that can be used to access the internet or do basic office tasks.

cman said:
Always wondered why people use the name Jesus as a swear/power/cuss/whatever word?

Why use someone's name? ...and why Jesus and not Mohammed or Buddha?

A case of everybody else does, so why not?

Bit off topic, I know.

Presumably because it is an example of blasphemy, as expressly forbidden in the Bible. If you want to try changing to a different religious figure then by all means go for it but I don't think it will have quite the same catchiness.

RDM · 29 Nov 2009 at 22:42

semi-pro waster said:
If you want to try changing to a different religious figure then by all means go for it but I don't think it will have quite the same catchiness.

I dunno, depending on location and how you use it using a different religious figure could be quite effective.

mattheman · 30 Nov 2009 at 02:47

russ0r said:
I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone is being lobbied here. Either that or somebody in government owns significant shares in Comet.

I always laughed at America and thought 'well at least our politicians aren't lobbied by big business'. Shame that's the way it's going.

arh at last some else can see it.

semi-pro waster · 30 Nov 2009 at 08:05

RDM said:
I dunno, depending on location and how you use it using a different religious figure could be quite effective.

True enough, I'll cede that point. I don't believe I've ever seen militant Buddhists but I imagine it would be quite a sight.

Sankari · 30 Nov 2009 at 08:50

russ0r said:
I always laughed at America and thought 'well at least our politicians aren't lobbied by big business'. Shame that's the way it's going.

You're a few decades out of date. Read Anthony Simpson's book Who Runs This Place? and George Monbiot's Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain.

Corporations > governments.

Cosimo · 30 Nov 2009 at 08:54

dangerstat said:
I dont see whats wrong with his? Poor kids getting access the the internet?

Neither do I and it's not exactly new news.

Sankari · 30 Nov 2009 at 09:35

I still can't see the point of this exercise. What a colossal waste of money for no discernable benefit.

Gaygle · 30 Nov 2009 at 09:47

So we can barely afford to fund our police service, school system and health system as well as barely being able to support the troops in Afghanistan/Iraq....but spending £150 million on laptops is just fine?

I don't know ANYONE, not one person who hasn't got regular, easy access to a computer/laptop. And £528 for one?! I got my netbook for £229 18 months ago and it is brilliant.

And i don't know....again, anyone who can't afford to buy a laptop. I know many people who'd rather spend their money on other things (cigarettes, holidays, booze), but still. I managed to buy my netbook whilst i was on the equivalent of £300 a month - i SAVED up. Something which an increasing number of people haven't heard of.

Knubje · 30 Nov 2009 at 10:22

I am a true believer in that Labour are doing this as a last ditch attempt to steal back some working class votes before the elections. I think that the chances of it ever happening are quite low, considering overall; the amount of money involved, the logistics to get it done, the fact that other public services could use that money and that most people can get on the internet already.

I'm sure poor people are allowed Library cards still, you can go on the net there. Internet cafe's do exist for a reason.

I mean, why don't we just say that all families earning under £16k a year all deserve a free 42" LCD TV because everyone has a "right" to watch TV?

**** off Labour!

[TW]Fox · 30 Nov 2009 at 10:26

Why bother to spend years getting qualifications etc etc to get a good job in order to buy luxury goods like laptops? Instead, don't bother, and get them for free :confused:

ryujinjakka · 30 Nov 2009 at 10:37

this is just a joke, i dont know anyone who doesnt already have or have access to the internet, if you dont have a friend or family with internet theres always the library or school IT rooms at lunch times or after school, i just think this is a massive waste of money which could be used much better elsewhere like the health service or police force.

Efour · 30 Nov 2009 at 10:43

Wow i hardly think a computer and the internet is a luxury item these days.

The price was probably pre ranged with the big high-street suppliers and some no clue dumb arse civil servant. Id expect at least 200 quid of that to be for a wireless/ mobile connection dongle.

I have zero problems with this - its a drop in the ocean tax wise. Shame its been spun so anti labour as usual. Id rather see them scrap a Nuclear Sub and save us billions.

[TW]Fox · 30 Nov 2009 at 10:46

Efour2 said:
Wow i hardly think a computer and the internet is a luxury item these days.

Nobody NEEDS a portable computer.

Duke · 30 Nov 2009 at 10:52

They should have rolled out more desktop computers at libraries and other public places for people to use.

semi-pro waster · 30 Nov 2009 at 11:15

[TW]Fox;15425416 said:
Why bother to spend years getting qualifications etc etc to get a good job in order to buy luxury goods like laptops? Instead, don't bother, and get them for free

If you'll allow me the luxury of putting it as a simple dichotomy; would you prefer to be in the position of having no/very limited qualifications and a few 'freebies' or being well qualified and paying a bit more tax sometimes?

[TW]Fox · 30 Nov 2009 at 11:16

semi-pro waster said:
If you'll allow me the luxury of putting it as a simple dichotomy; would you prefer to be in the position of having no/very limited qualifications and a few 'freebies' or being well qualified and paying a bit more tax sometimes?

Not really sure thats relevant. Why should such a 'choice' exist?

Being well qualified isn't something you luck into? It often takes years of dedication, hard work and temporary poverty. Don't know many rich trainee doctors..

mattheman · 30 Nov 2009 at 11:23

semi-pro waster said:
If you'll allow me the luxury of putting it as a simple dichotomy; would you prefer to be in the position of having no/very limited qualifications and a few 'freebies' or being well qualified and paying a bit more tax sometimes?

why no both.

semi-pro waster · 30 Nov 2009 at 15:23

[TW]Fox;15425736 said:
Not really sure thats relevant. Why should such a 'choice' exist?

Being well qualified isn't something you luck into? It often takes years of dedication, hard work and temporary poverty. Don't know many rich trainee doctors..

I put it as a simple either/or because you appear to be implying that you can either do very little and get given some 'freebies' or you work hard to get the 'good job' - in that case of the two positions I know which one I'd rather be in so I don't feel that I'm hard done by if I've done the latter yet get taxed more to pay for others who are not as well off. I'm not sure the choice outlined above is that simple and if a scheme such as this will allow more of the people who would previously not gain enough in the way of qualifications to now do so then I think it would be wholly worthwhile.

mattheman said:
why no both.

You want no/limited qualifications and being well qualified? Simple reason why not is because they are mutually exclusive. If you mean the 'freebies' and paying more tax then there is no real reason why they have to be mutually exclusive.