Joan gave birth to Eve early this morning and they’re both doing well. Sleep tight!

Seachtain na Gaeilge is looking for a new logo. This is my entry, above.

2009-08-18: “Ar an drochuair bheartaigh an fhoireann nach bhfuil muid chun lógó ar bith a úsáid a fuaireamar ón bpobal.” /  “Unfortunately the staff have decided not to pursue any logos that we received from the public.”

Me: Oh, what company are you with?

Sales rep.: Airtricity

Me: Actually, I’m already with Airtricity … Can I still have a discount?

Sales rep.: … No.

Ah, well. Worth a try…

Angela MacNamara (Letters, 15th January) claims that the way to tackle bullying and other problems is by implementing “objective moral and ethical norms and the appropriate punishment for breaching these”; a thinly-veiled call to adopt a religious, and most likely Catholic, morality.

Setting aside for a moment that religious teaching on morality is not objective but rather based on the subjective views of adherents dating back to the Bronze Age; and ignoring the unreliability of teachings that include talking animals, virgin births and other nonsense as sources of morality; and leaving aside dubious moral positions on issues like slavery and eating shellfish; the simple problem is that it doesn’t work.

If religious morality actually worked we would expect that its most visible proponents would be good examples (of their own teaching, at least). However, it clearly does not restrain, for example, some Catholic priests from raping young children, or their colleagues from covering for them.

Perhaps some piece of doctrine is not sufficiently clear on certain points, or maybe the perpetrators do not fear the punishments: real, or supernatural and hence non-existent. Whatever the cause, the problem remains.

Bullying, and indeed raping children, clearly falls outside the boundaries of what is morally acceptable in our society at this point in history. We should be pleased that our relative and subjective moral values have improved to such a stage and we should, of course, strive to further reduce suffering. It seems to me that introducing a flawed religious moral code that denies the possibility of improvement is unlikely to help.

The Dell XPS M1330 is actually sold preinstalled with Ubuntu Linux in some parts of the world but not Ireland. This was good news from the point of view of compatibility but it would mean buying the system with Windows pre-installed and wiping it later.

I ordered the system on the 25th June and it was delivered on the 4th July. I say it was delivered, but it was missing an important part: the battery! But I didn’t let that stand in my way: I booted straight off an Ubuntu install CD, wiped the system and got up and running in Ubuntu. I contacted Dell about the missing battery and they sent one out a few days later.

With the battery issue sorted out I decided it was time to return the unwanted software with unacceptable licence terms that Dell had included in my order. On the 10th July I wrote to Dell customer service:

I would like to return Microsoft Windows Vista, Microsoft Works 9 and Roxio Creator software supplied with my computer for a full refund as I do not accept the licence agreements.

Please let me know how I should proceed. I am happy to destroy or return software media, licence keys, etc.

I got a response the same day saying:

I am sorry but we will not be able to cancel software media and license.

We will be able to cancel the complete order and refund the complete amount under 7 days but will not be able to cancel the software media and license.

I wrote back pointing out the clause in the software licence agreement that came with the system that says:

“If you do not agree to these terms, promptly return all Software items (disks, written materials, and packaging) and delete any preloaded or embedded Software.”
from “Dell Computers and Monitors Product Information Guide”, page 8 (Barcode 0HY356A05).

I explained that I had already deleted the software and would be happy to return the discs and licence keys. I also asked for a refund for the software. Admittedly the licence didn’t say I was entitled to a refund but my reasoning was that since I paid for these pieces of software I should get my money back if I am returning them.

I got a response the next day that quoted a  bit of the Terms and Conditions of sales for the UK which said that I would lose my right to return software supplied on DVD if it was unwrapped. I pointed out that I wasn’t in the UK, that I was referring to preinstalled software, and that I hadn’t unwrapped the restore/install disks.

I received a reply to this with a different excuse: “The Operating System is factory installed and so we will not be able to cancel it.” I replied that there didn’t seem to be anything in the licence that excluded preinstalled software from  being returned.

In my response I raised the issue that Dell had given refunds in similar cases in Ireland, the UK and the USA. I also mentioned that if Dell had offered the system with Ubuntu pre-installed in Ireland then I would not be complaining.

A few days later I got a reply from the supervisor of the customer service agent I had been dealing with again refusing to accept return of the software:

The reason being, these are pre installed in the system and though you have not used it or have deleted it from your system we would not be able to cancel for a refund.

I replied on 15th July reiterating all the point I had made. I made an estimate of how much I was entitled to as a refund (at this point I didn’t know how much I had actually been charged) and I threatened to take the matter to the Small Claims Court if I didn’t get a response.

A week later I hadn’t got a resposne and I wrote saying again that I was willing to return the software and giving Dell another week to respond. After the week had elapsed on the 31st July I called Dell customer service in the hope that I might get some response by speaking in person. This call was largely futile: the agent argued that I couldn’t return the software because I already had a licence key and they wouldn’t be able to reuse it if I returned the software (or something like that).

However, the call was not entirely wasted because I asked how much I had been charged for the pre-installed software and the agent was happy to tell me that it was €115.92 for Windows and  €11.59 for Works before VAT at 21%. That came to €154.28 after VAT, a significant portion of what I was charged for the system as a whole. I emailed Dell to revise my request for refund to this amount and to let them know that I would be making a complaint to the Small Claims Court on the 5th August if I hadn’t heard from them.

On the 5th August I made a claim via the Small Claims Online System. I had to fill in my details, Dell’s details, the amount claimed and a brief description of the claim. I then had to give my credit card details to pay the €15 fee and I was given a reference number and the impressive-looking title of the case: DAVID O’CALLAGHAN -V- DELL PRODUCTS.
Dell were served with the claim on the 8th August and were given 15 calendar days to respond.

I contacted the Small Claims office today to find out what should happen now that the 15 days are up and was told that in practice the registrar can allow the respondent six weeks to reply: I was told to wait until 19th September.

But when I got home there was a nice surprise for me. A letter from Dell with a cheque attached for €154.28. The letter itself was artfully vague:

Further to your recent enquiry please find enclosed a cheque for the amount:
€154.28

Yours Sincerely,
Refunds Department,
Dell Products.

Now technically Dell haven’t admitted the claim (i.e. accepted that I was entitled to a refund). If they did they should have sent the cheque to the Small Claims registrar. I suppose, It’s possible that their response to the registrar was sent at the same time as my cheque but just hasn’t arrived yet.

Anyway, tomorrow I will post the rejected software and Windows licence key sticker back to Dell and lodge my refund cheque.

This is from the free newspaper Metro (which doesn’t have a proper website). And how’s this for quality, restrained journalism: “In the book of Revelation the end of the world is heralded by the arrival of the four horsemen of the apocalypse…”

More on the Ultimate Doomsday Machine:

• Full Metro article
• Botanist sues to stop CERN hurling Earth into parallel universe
• XKCD

Update 2008-05-17: Sorry, I forgot to mention that the LHC is also Satan’s Stargate to Earth.

That does not easily make for an integrated educational experience. And it raises valid questions of competence and control for churches charged with responsibility for that religious education. Is it to be an education about religion or into a particular religion, for example? If the former, why not broaden the curriculum so that all relevant religions are taught? And if the latter, would it not be better to conduct such courses outside the normal school day for those parents who want them? Could the two approaches be combined?

This got a predictable response from members of the Catholic hierarchy. Séamus Murphy, a lecturer from the Catholic Milltown Institute who is a Catholic priest and a Jesuit claimed that this was an attack on parents’ rights to choose their childrens’ education.

It is ironic, too, that increased cultural and religious diversity should be viewed as grounds for more State control and uniformity.

[...]

The widespread undermining of family and parental rights must greatly increase State power, at the expense of freedom.

There is such a thing as “soft totalitarianism”, and the attack on family and religion from various quarters feeds it.

His talk of “State control” is especially ironic when the Catholic Church currently has totally undemocratic control of upwards of 90% of primary schools in Ireland.

I had a letter published in response on 4th April:

Séamus Murphy seems surprised that one might accept religious education in schools “provided no religion was taught as ‘true’ “. It would make no sense for State-funded schools to teach as true the world’s many and mutually contradictory (and often internally inconsistent) religious beliefs, and there is no reason to think that any one religion should be favoured by the State. Parents who wish to instruct their children in a religion should be free to do so outside school with the support of their religious community. This would allow total freedom of choice for parents.

The virtual monopoly of the Catholic Church on primary education in the State deeply undermines parents’ rights to give their children an education without the Catholic elements, should they so wish. To describe progressive moves to reduce the church’s undemocratic control as “undermining of family and parental rights” and “at the expense of freedom” defies belief.

In today’s issue The Irish Times carries a “head-to-head” article on the question
Is denominational education suitable for 21st century Ireland?

The “yes” side was written by John Murray a lecturer in (yes, Catholic) Mater Dei Institute of Education. He argues for keeping denominational (i.e. single-religion) education on the basis of “pluralism”.

Denominational schools are not inherently divisive. [...] Denominational schools are committed to social equality, tolerance and peace. [...] It is important for our increasingly multicultural society that society supports schooling that shows how specific religious world-views and commitments can be sources of peace and social progress.

This is pretty weak stuff. Religious people can be nice to others sometimes so we should have schools that attempt to immerse children in religion. He goes on:

In a healthy pluralistic society we should show respect for people’s deeply held convictions and beliefs, and a pluralistic education system does this by allowing and supporting faith-based education as part of the system.

The first part of this statement is wrong: we should not necessarily “show respect” for people’s beliefs simply because they are deeply held. What does it even mean to show respect for a belief? Beliefs deserve respect only to the level that it is merited. Belief that we should be nice to each other: fine. Belief that all atheists and homosexuals deserve eternal torment in Hell: not fine. On the other hand people who happen to have religious beliefs do deserve an inherent level of respect just by virtue of being human, but respect may fall as well as rise depending on their actions and the risks posed by their beliefs.

The second part of the statement, that a pluralistic society should support faith schools doesn’t follow. A pluralistic society could function just as well with secular schools and home- or church-based religious instruction. However, the faith-schoolers don’t like this because it would mean convincing children to go to Sunday school (or equivalent) rather than having an immersive religious school experience with religious instruction almost every day, religious symbols in every classroom, and so on.

Unfortunately the writer for the “No” side, John Carr, general secretary of the Irish National Teachers Organisation, puts up a rather weak opposition arguing for something like the “multi-faith” model with separate classes for different religious groups. He writes:

I disagree with the argument that religion should have no place in schools. Neither do I propose that all denominational schools should be forcibly changed into multi-faith schools. Such a position would simply be a reverse of the virtual monopoly situation that exists at present.

Certainly forcing such a change would be unpalatable but to describe it as a “reverse” of the current situation as if that was a bad thing is odd. He seems to imagine some sort of Total Atheist Domination. But he finishes on what I see as a positive note:

When originally established in 1831 it was intended that primary schools would provide secular education for all children in the same school with separate religious education.

It was certainly an idea before its time, but has its time now come?

They had a marketing crew in Dublin this morning who were, ahem, giving people AdeZ. For free!