Sounds a lot like a hollowed out volcano to me...
Skullduggery is afoot...
573 posts • joined 9 Aug 2011
Sounds a lot like a hollowed out volcano to me...
Skullduggery is afoot...
The NBN is off-budget. The money for the NBN doesn't come from the budget, so cancelling it won't magically create more funds to be allocated to other areas. This has been covered time and time again.
The money spent on the NBN is recuperated through subscriptions, as well as the potential sale of the NBN Co. at the end of the rollout. ROI is (I believe, but will stand corrected if need be) ~7%. That's not taking into account the benefits of greater bandwidth, or the futureproofing of australia's network.
The most wasteful thing that can be done is to cancel what is being built now, and continue on with half-a-network that will need a further doubling of investment in order to be adequate in a further 10 years. Particularly when the majority of people will be on speeds near current networks in the first place.
I realise the "me, me, me" attutude of many is taking over, but I'd rather wait an extra couple of years if it meant having a *proper* 21st century network.
Considering it's the female plants you really want, I'm surprised the Daily Mail didn't go with "WELSHMAN DEFLOWERS 32 IMMATURE FEMALES IN GARDEN SHED".
But they're Spanish - which is precisely why no-one will expect it...
And, for what it's worth, this year's "garage 56" car was powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. (it also looked ridiculous, but that's besides the point).
I believe the car has it's own petrol motor charging the batteries, even Nissan has come out and said that it's impossible for a purely battery powered car to run at race pace for 24 minutes, let alone 24 hours. The engine only charges the batteries - it doesn't deliver power to the wheels.
The ZEOD is 100% electric in that it's propelled by 2 electric motors, producing ~200Kw. It also weights around 100kg less than the prototypes (meaning it will be around 1 tonne) and due to the unusual profile, which minimises frontal area, it should be vastly more aerodynamic than the other cars (which is the most important factor at an extremely high speed track like Circuit de la Sarthe, and for a 24 hr endurance race). Garage 56 entries are also required to agree to use the propulsion method 3-4 years down the track - in an official le mans car - it's not just a PR excercise, it requires investment. It is, nonetheless, designed to stretch boundaries rather than demonstrate an alternative that is immediately competitive with the other cars.
As for those saying it's irrelevant... it's more relevant than any other form of racing. The advances made to diesels at racing level allow developments to trickle down to road cars - things like high pressure direct injection, alloy blocks, these are things that require investment, and the investment comes from racing. Whilst KERS may not seem to bear any resemblance to any road cars, Ferrari have already said they're using KERS developed technology in their new flagship, and Mazda are (I believe) releasing a mechanical hybrid using a flywheel device in the near future.
If it was immediately obvious how racing technology could be applied to road cars, someone else would come along and do something more extreme. Racing is where the investment is, if racing rules can provide direction for new technologies, then there's no doubt that they can be used to benefit road cars down the track.
^Should say, "Except Murdoch press lacks the objectivity, etc". Can't wait till I can edit...
"a mockery of media whose basic mission is objectivity, impartiality and neutrality and an intolerable insult to human conscience"
Sounds like murdoch press. Except without the objectivity, impartiality and neutrality.
Does peanut butter still stick to the roof of your mouth in zero gravity?
No-one so far has claimed that they don't need to be processed. But the sky might not be falling quite as quickly as you'd have people believe.
People coming from France could potentially be carrying measles too - yet there's no cries to stop them coming here. In fact the number of people vaccinated *within* Australia is dropping - at least boat people can be intercepted and vaccinated as they're processed - if, as you say, they're disease risk, why are we not rounding up unvaccinated citizens and vaccinating them too?! It seems somewhat hypocritical that we're subjecting immigrants to vaccinations because "they spread disease" but our own citizens are free to travel overseas, unvaccinated, and return with whatever they've brought back with them.
The terrorism argument has been thrown around for years. 9/11 attacks were carried out by people on tourism or study visas (can't remember which) - point is, they were here "legitimately", the London bombers were citizens, as was Timothy McVae - all the large terror attacks have been carried out not by people who were "illegals" but by those who were able to arouse the least suspicion from the "citizens=good, immigrants=bad" camp. Ultimately, if someone wants to commit a terrorist attack, they don't get on a leaky boat for 2 months, with little chance of survival, in the hope that they get picked up by the Australian Military.
You can regurgitate the "Australian way of life" horseshit for as long as you like - the fact is that you don't need "delicate liberal sensibilities" to see the need for a humanitarian solution to what is a humanitarian problem. Yes, they need processing. Yes, it takes time. But "turning back boats" does nothing but cause a humanitariam disaster, and makes Australia look backwards to every other developed nation, and unless the problem is addressed at the source (ie the countries they're coming from, or neighbouring countries dealing with people smugglers themselves) then their numbers won't drop.
How many countries you've passed through doesn't determine how *far* you've travelled either. Nice strawman though.
The definition of "take you in" and "safety" varies from country to country as well - Australia is surrounded by small developing nations that have enough trouble caring for their own people, let alone "taking in" refugees.
People seem to think Australia is surrounded by tourist resorts, and that they're qualified to comment on how "great" conditions are in those countries simply because they own an Bintang singlet.
How far you travel doesn't determine your eligibility for refugee status. People don't come here on sinking boats because it's "easier" to get in - it's because it the only option they have.
Mind if I ask which war-torn country you came from? And what atrocities you were escaping?
I love that people have the notion that worldwide refugee numbers are somehow determined solely by the immigration policy of Australia, and not external factors such as war, famine, racial prejudice, etc.
Immigration ministers seem to have a habit of admitting their policies don't do very much, on both sides of politics:
"The former Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Evans, has argued, along with many refugee advocates and journalists, that the introduction of TPVs was ineffective in reducing the number of unauthorised boat arrivals"
The Howard government saw a massive spike on the introduction of their TPV's, similar to today's numbers - I'm surprised the Daily Telegraph used 2002 figures - if they went back just one more year they'd have seen numbers similar to recent years. I guess they were "out of control" from 1999-2001 as well? Or does the term only apply when a party you don't like is in power?
Obviously deterrents to the immigrants themselves don't work (and why would they? they're not coming here for a holiday, they're risking their lives because they'll lose them if they stay) - perhaps if that 3.2 billion was put into helping rectify issues in other countries we'd have less boat people? But of course such a move would be political suicide; the FUD surrounding "sending billions offshore" would be pounced on by Abbott et al regardless of the effect it would have on stopping the boats. 3.2 billion spent is the result of years of boat people being a political football. Make no mistake, this is an election issue because it determines votes, not because it affects the lives of anyone in Australia.
It's quite damning that Australia is happy for "international waters" to be controlled by Australia when legal (according to international law) whaling vessels travel into those waters, but when a boat full of people moves in on the same waters we want nothing to do with them because they're in "international waters".
TIFKAM - The Imbibement Formerly Known As Marijuana (following the inevitable unwanted rebrand)
Or they could go with the stereotypical pot-smoking freetard segment with WINDOWS ***CRACK*** (100% WORKING)
"What other solvent would you suggest, that is abundant in our solar system, liquid in the temperature range likely to have existed on Mars in the past, and chemically consistent with the composition of the rocks in question, and the planet as a whole?"
Autonomous robots makes things quite simple, I'd have thought. Since there aren't actually any people fighting on the battlefield, the idea of one defending one's land becomes moot. Therefore there's no need for the fighting to actually take place on the battlefield. It also means that you don't need legions of robots - that's wasteful - just one will do, from each side, trying to kill the other.
Since the U.S will undoubtedly be a big player in these "Robot Wars", I predict televised matches, in which a single robot from one country will fight a single robot from the other, and the victor gets (for example) Syria. No collateral damage, no destruction of entire countries, and Craig Charles can host.
"After lengthy investigation, talking to witnesses and reviewing good CCTV footage, it was confirmed that there was no assault."
All that jedi training finally paid off.
Banker? Pah! I'm helping out the *Prince* of Nigeria! Already paid the admin fee, just waiting for those millions to come through...
"From the FBI's persepctive, people who are sat at home playing video games with their mates are not of interest."
Unless the game or movie they're watching is pirated.
Yeah, the price has become pretty outrageous, but on a dollar-per-clogged-artery basis it's actually quite good value.
Haven't tried The Sultan's Table, but will now!
1. Victoria Yeeros expansion onto every corner
2. Subsidise costs of said yeeros
For once an exclamation mark after every word would have made the headline less ambiguous...
Or if he used an ACME Sleep Grenade to sneak past any guards...
Judging from the time stamps, I'm guessing Lester's post came in a tad late...
Cars and walking have a purpose other than killing. To compare walking to gun ownership because "some people get hurt walking" misses the issue entirely. If anything, the comparison demonstrates how tenuous the similarities between guns and cars/walking really are. (not to mention that in the example you gave, walking is a passive action - it's akin to banning people from going into office buildings because of 9/11).
Even if, as some people claim, a car is a "weapon", as it can be used to murder, it requires premeditation to get in the car, start it up, put it in gear, release handbrake, drive out of driveway, into street, then navigate to wherever I want to kill someone. It's not a case of pulling a trigger, and the intended purpose of a car is not to kill - so even if I *wanted* to, I still quite possibly couldn't kill anyone with it. What's more, despite the number of cars in the world (billions) the number of intentional killings using them is miniscule.
Lastly, a car doesn't always kill. I've had car accidents where both cars were written off, and no-one was injured. In fact the number of accidents involving no injuries is much higher than the accidents that do result in injuries - I've not heard of someone taking a bullet in the head and not sustaining any injuries, but will happily stand corrected.
Using a gun for suicide requires no thought - pick up gun, pull trigger. Like it or not, people make decisions that they regret later, and suicides that require more time/thought result in less chance of people going through with it. It's why they have councillors at popular bridge jumping spots - not to "fix" the issues people have, but to at least give them time to think. If you make someone go to a lot of effort to kill themselves, they're at least going to have to give the issue more thought - a gun removes that second chance.
"how much should society give up to make it safer for one person?"
^Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head with this question. Why should we be happy with people blowing their own brains out, either intentionally or unintentionally, simply so that a few paranoid types can "feel a sense of security"? If safety is measured as the likelihood of being killed or injured by a weapon, then guns need to be controlled. Why should society be happy for shootings to be commonplace when it's only being done to placate the few who are so insecure so as to need a placebo for their issues? With effective gun control, society gives up nothing. With the way things are, many people are at risk of injury so that one person can have the illusion of safety.
The "uses" of a gun are limited to killing - that's their sole purpose. They can be used to intimidate, but only because they're designed to kill. They give a sense of security, but only because they're designed to kill. Recreation is the only other use, and using a gun for recreation doesn't require it to be loaded/kept at home.
The gun? yes. A small, plastic contraption.
The bullets? no.
At 30,000ft a fart would be more deadly.
I love that people assume a "criminal" has a big label over them identifying them as such, as though they're born "criminals". Whay happens when your wife/daughter/son gets shot dead by someone else's wife/daughter/son because they thought they saw a criminal? or felt threatened? or panicked? or because your wife/daughter/son *is* a "criminal" (care to define the term?) because, like it or not, every "criminal" is *someone's* wife/husband/daughter/son/father/mother.
If everyone should be allowed to carry guns, then yes, the criminals have them. But no-one can identify their intentions, nor take them away from the criminals. It has a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing effect. Trying to identify and shoot a "criminal" when everyone is waving their guns about in a panic is not something I'd want on my conscience.
If no-one is allowed, then the simple act of carrying one *makes someone* a criminal - and thus they're liable to be charged without ever having used it, the moment someone sees them with it. Will they be able to perpetrate a crime with it? Possibly. But the risk of them shooting someone dead is lowered, since they know they're not going to have to shoot first "just in case". Most cases where guns are used as a threat aren't intended to result in death - they're robberies, break and enters, etc. The goal isn't shooting someone dead, so anything to reduce the risk of someone pulling a trigger will be beneficial for everyone's wife/daughter/son - and if that safety comes at the price of a few posessions, then so be it.
Assuming your plastic AK doesn't shatter immediately, you'll end up with a pile of molten plastic after a few rounds. Cost is irrelevant, the design of the AK takes the material into account - there's a reason guns aren't usually made out of plastic.
Ultimately, for $1000 of plastic you're better off making a simple object that won't go wrong - a slingshot or knife would be better for a 1 use object, I would imagine.
In terms of concealability, a sharpened toothbrush would be more effective, not to mention cheaper and have a similar range to the liberator.
I had to laugh at that.
Nitsana Darshan-Leitner appears to be in some confusion as to the value of her opinion relative to that of Prof. Hawking.
How about Rear Admiral 64?
Apparently rear admiral is a higher rank anyway...
Really though, not having any electronic knowledge is not really an issue for the sorts of people that this sort of item appeals to - when your idea is something that a large portion of your target market would consider to be a neat little project they could achieve with a similar amount of money in spare time (popping a raspberry pi into a c64 case or similar), the business case begins to make rather less sense...
Early next year was my first.
And don't forget camera shake - apparently all soldiers can only focus on an object for about half a second before spinning around wildly and shaking their head about.
This is EA. They've probably already found a way to set the game in 1942. (less reskinning to do!)
The resolution has increased dramatically since then; you won't even notice the pixels!
Now it's Prenda Law's turn to prove their innocence.... I get the feeling the IRS was thrown in there to make them squirm, the real pain is still coming.
I believe that to the target market, the ability to mutter the phrase "why don't you come back to my place and I'll show you my flying car" is of greater value than the carplane itself, and well worth the ridiculous cost/contrived design.
Personally I don't see the appeal of a car that makes going around corners unneccesary.
I don't mind the idea either - however I've not yet seen any confirmation that this will be ad-free, just that there will be "premium content" on 50 channels for 1.99. (happy to stand corrected)
I remember when Eadon put effort into his Windows-bashing.
I'd have expected something along the lines of "Poor bathroom design, but it could have been worse - at least they didn't have Windows!"
but assuming it'll be 1080p (which the latest phones support, so no compatibility issues, plus on a 21" monitor it's plenty of pixels) and assuming "double the cost of a regular monitor" = double a cheap 21" (not twice their top-o'-the-line model, so ~ $400-$500 AU), and assuming it supports USB on the go (or whatever it's called, where it'll recognise mass storage devices) I can see it functioning very well as a cheap backup media player, for the kids or whatnot.
Sure, there's a lot of assumptions^^ up there (esp. price), but if they're serious about sales, it has the potential to carve a niche for itself.
I Like the way he's approaching this, but at the same time, I can't help but feel his perspective is still from the 90's.
If I hadn't downloaded the first season illegally, I'd never have believed it was worth spending $60AUD on the BluRay. Sure, they may have got a few dollars if I had an Apple device, and I used iTunes, and I decided to purchase the episodes - but assuming a price of about $3 per episode, and the fact that Apple takes their Lion's (hurr hurr hurr) share of the price, the people actually responsible for making the series wouldn't see anywhere near the amount of money that they are. And since I'd already paid for it once on iTunes, I'd hardly pay for it again on BluRay.
The attitude seems to be that if they can't see the payments/benefits directly, they don't exist. Nevermind the exposure that piracy gives a show (I highly doubt that without the internet, Game Of Thrones would be anywhere near as successful as it has been).
Many of the people on facebook talking up the show are the ones who have pirated it (his use of facebook to try and tackle the issue seems to confirm this too) and the fact remains that it's their freetard ways that have created the "first world problem" of having a really successful show (that some people aren't paying for) in the first place. Until they address the speed and convenience advantage that digital downloads *SHOULD* have over other methods, I can't see them ever supplanting torrents.
If anyone starts querying why the science budget is so high, just tell them you can't explain it because it's irreducibly complex.
Should pretty much guarantee funding.
Anything already covered by the Bible would be considered duplicitous and therefore ineligible for funding?
Put the word "Tycoon" after it. Once rollercoaster and Railroad came out, most of what followed was a fairly poor variation on an unimaginative formula.
sounds a lot like what most westerners would call first dates... Although I guess in this instance the girl isn't interested in anything past the first date. But to a desperate mobile gaming nerd, a date in return for paying for a meal presumably doesn't sound like too much of a raw deal compared to most other scams.
The lobbying equivalent of "Reserve not met".
Either RIAA/MPAA have to lift their bids or the Senate has to be a bit more realistic about how many yachts this bill will buy them.
But they're based of out an old soviet nuclear bunker.
A *nuclear* *bunker*.
That makes my company's data safe, right?
So you think the cartel will suddenly stop price fixing when government regulation is removed?!
There's no doubt the government makes decisions in the interest of the people lining their pockets, but at least there's a modicum of accountability if people make enough noise. Without that regulation in place, the cartels will be able to do whatever they want, and set prices as high as they want - thanks to the TEA party.
...and that seemed like a convenient place to stop looking.