Regular readers will know that I am no fan of the Gillard government. It was an abomination from birth, conceived in a deal with miners that was a breathtaking betrayal of the Australian public. But that does not mean that all of its policies are bad and should be scrapped.
On the contrary, its two best policies are visionary in an economic and nation-building sense, these are the carbon price and the NBN.
Yet the Opposition, which is going to win the election in a doddle (if Newspoll has anything to say about it), has committed to dismantling both despite being in clear practical and philosophical agreement with the principles that drive the two policies. The idiocy of this is on display in several stories this morning that should make the blood boil for anyone committed to efficiency in public spending.
Let us be clear. Nobody in Canberra any longer disputes the balance of probabilities argument about human-induced climate change. Both parties are committed to addressing this issue. The only debate is about how to do so. The Labor government has installed a carbon price. It is not a tax. It is a relative pricing mechanism that makes greenhouse gas intensive energy more expensive and less-polluting energy less expensive. That is all it is.
In creating it, the Labor government had to ensure that those legacy industries that were most effected by the price changes were compensated. These industries – power and manufacturing mostly – were gifted free permits and rebates. This was a direct cost to the people of Australia to guarantee smooth implementation of the price. In my view they went so far as to actually compromise the efficiency of the price effects but that’s a matter of opinion.
In the end some form of compensation was necessary to prevent a destabilsing pace of change.
Now, as the Opposition prepares to take government, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey admits he is planning to compensate renewable energy firms for scrapping the carbon price:
Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey has said a coalition government would compensate businesses affected by the abolition of the carbon tax on a case-by-case basis.
Many Australian businesses involved in clean energy and other sectors are benefiting from the price on carbon dioxide emissions, which will move to an emissions trading scheme in 2015.
However, Mr Hockey told reporters in Launceston on Monday the cost of the carbon tax on households and business was “far greater than any money that is coming out of Canberra to compensate individual businesses”.
He said the best way to improve the bottom line of all businesses was to get rid of the carbon tax.
This is manifestly wrong. Benign CPI figures and the lack of complaint about the price show a remarkable lack of impact on costs. Suddenly some of the most ardent moaners about the tax, Bluescope Steel for instance, are on fire on the stock market and are forecasting a rebuild in profits.
By the time of the election and the subsequent double-dissolution election (another $160 million or so down the gurgler) the carbon price will have been operative for two years. Firms will have been well on their way to adapting. China will have joined or be about to join us by then with its own planned carbon price on top of that already operating in the EU, meaning about a third of the world’s population had priced carbon. Yet we’re going to remove it, and pay another round of compensation to those firms that benefited from it. And we’re going to do this despite a carbon price being in complete philosophical sympatico with the Liberal Party’s belief in markets and private enterprise as a solution to a problem that they accept needs remedy. What’s more, they are going to go ahead with a an alternative solution based upon the dead hand of government choosing winners and losers, which is in total contradiction to their own tenets.
And then there’s the NBN. It is true that there has been limited cost-benefit analysis on the project. But given both parties now also agree that is should be built, the only question is again what sort of NBN do we want? Do we want a genuinely new broadband network that can set up super-fast communications for a country dogged by the tyranny of distance for the next century or so? Or, we want a half-arsed NBN that relies upon copper-wiring to deliver from the node to households and doesn’t work so well?
I’m of the view that the NBN is a magnificent piece of infrastructure that ticks every box on good rationales for big-ticket government spending. It is not about pork; is fantastically equipped to deliver productivity gains; is forward looking in the way a ten lane Sydney Harbour Bridge was when everyone rode horses, and it is a piece of infrastructure that only government could finance and build that sets a framework for any number of new industries to spring up and expand.
It is, in short, a Bobby Dazzler.
Yet what is the new government going to do with this? From the AFR today:
The Coalition will use a parliamentary report to demand that NBN Co prepares plans for a change of government, as senior telecommunications executives labelled Mike Quigley’s call for a consultation into different rollout methods as a bizarre backflip.
According to a draft dissenting report seen exclusively by The Australian Financial Review, the Coalition will make a series of recommendations aimed at preparing the national broadband network for a Labor loss.
It said NBN Co and its board should be “clearly mindful” of a possible change of government after September 14 and the need to alter contracts.
The draft report goes on to call for NBN Co to detail the potential benefits of changing contract conditions before the next election. It also recommends that all future contracts have clauses written in that allow NBN Co to change the contracts as required as a result of a change in government.
So, the incoming government, which quite clearly has no idea what kind of technology the NBN should be based upon (remember last week it was still tossing around using the existing cable TV network) is going to screw every contract the NBN writes while it tries to figure out what it has so far failed to conclude in three years of trying. Is it any wonder that the NBN CEO is suddenly all over the place:
“None of this is too late to talk about [and] it’s definitely not too late to do [fibre-to-the-basement] if you chose to do it. Likewise you can deploy tens of thousands of cabinets and deploy FTTN, that’s not out of the question either.”
…On Monday AAPT chief executive David Yuile told the Financial Review that NBN Co had only raised the issue a week before Mr Quigley went public, and described the move as “bizarre”.
…“You run the risk of ending up with another endless academic debate,” he said.
Let’s not let efficiency of government spending get in the way of that!
So far as I can tell, there are only explanations for these two bizarre examples of big government imbroglio orchestrated by our ‘small government’ political party. The first and better of the two is that the Liberal Party’s belief in small government is so extreme that it is quite happy to stuff-up well-executed and visionary policies so long as short-run costs are reduced.
The second explanation is that the Liberal Party is well aware that these polices are very good and consistent with its own principles but owing to Tony Abbott’s political strategy of objecting to everything for its own sake, they must be trashed irrespective of the national interest. If this is the case, and I suspect it is, then the Liberal Party now sees politics as a game, with no genuine civil service sentiment left.
Take your pick.
The third explanation is that the Coalition will “change its mind” once elected, citing the difficulty and expense of unwinding what is already a done deal.
A possible corollary of the second, yes. Hopefully, but not what their behaviour suggests.
Thought you might have meant trashed as in abandoned.
Ed: Trashed as in spoiled, one way or another.
Odd. I’m sure I didn’t write that second sentence. Seems to have been added after I posted.
Damn, sorry, that was my reply…
Thought it might have been! No worries.
How the hell did the construction of an optic fibre NBN become so amazingly polticised? It’s not even a radical idea, just basic common sense to use a superior product to replace an ageing, deteriorating old copper network, much of which was put in the ground before the concept of the internet even existed and is therefore doing a job it was never really designed for.
Basically because Abbott’s idea of politics is that it is a game and he politicises everything. There is no genuine civil service sentiment in any of these wankers any more.
I hear that.
GSM must have flown north today, otherwise he’d be frothing over this like stink on sh*t.
Keep scrolling…
I blame the 2gb listening boomers. Dumb as dog shit. Also the hideous property “investor” set and the mega mortgage mugs who either don’t want their property price to go down or want it to go up to lord it over people who missed the boom.
Also it doesn’t help that one of the left’s main policies is to scream “racist” and “misogynist” every two seconds, alienating a lot of people.
In short, the population is a pack of morons and scum.
If they don’t control the senate there is not much they can do about the carbon tax despite all the green houses being expended on their promises to dismantle it.
Plus it is such a sweet and growing source of loot that they will find some reason to say it is all too hard.
As for the NBN, they should take a more sensible approach if contractually possible.
New fibre for new houses and the many houses who don’t have decent access to ADSL or HFC ( read most places outside metro areas) but there is no compelling reason to rip up the HFC that passes millions of houses or the copper where decent ADSL speeds are currently available. In due course those links could be upgraded with FTTN.
I have fairly average ADSL speeds at my place (after moving from a house with HFC) and I have found great difficulty in chewing through 500g a month with that modest connection. There are not enough hours in the day to use the content that modest connection allows.
Yes i know it will not allow full 1080p uploads of video of my dancing cat but seriously who is ever going to send hi res video to their doctor from a private residence. Pity the doctors having to watch the stuff – were it possible.
Ultimately, on the NBN the liberals are only going to do what the ALP will do if reelected – allow sanity to prevail.
You seem to be reading an awful lot between the lines. Abbott has sworn his life on removing the carbon tax. How the Hell do folks vote based on that? I obviously have no objections to the NBN being built better. But the Opposition i s making no sense whatsoever on the issue.
In fact, if there were a half decent government, Abbott would look inept.
I’m not sure how much weight the typical voter gives to actual policies when deciding how to cast their vote.
Anyone with half a brain would have known what sort of approach Newman was going to embrace here in Queensland if he won. His governments popularity has gone throught the floor, many people seemingly unable to believe what they voted for. Too late now.
Agree completely on the last sentence.
Abbott can swear all the promises he likes with hand on chest – if he cannot deliver due to Senate ‘obstruction’ his conscience will be clear.
Promising the impossible is a costless exercise.
I suspect his greatest fear would be control of both houses as then he might be forced to walk the talk.
Abbott has gone past appearances . He is inept.
“I have fairly average ADSL speeds at my place (after moving from a house with HFC) and I have found great difficulty in chewing through 500g a month with that modest connection. There are not enough hours in the day to use the content that modest connection allows.
Yes i know it will not allow full 1080p uploads of video of my dancing cat but seriously who is ever going to send hi res video to their doctor from a private residence. Pity the doctors having to watch the stuff – were it possible.”
I see this kind of response often and am amazed at the lack of foresight of so many people. The NBN is not about what you can do now, with the applications we currently use. It’s about what EVERYONE will be able to do in 10 or 15 years. Once things get going even reasonable current ADSL2 speeds are not going to cut it. Also don’t look at it like 1 person sitting down and using the connection but expand that to whole families and smart devices all utilizing a connection simultaneously and smooth enough that frustrations at internet speeds are never even thought of any more.
Much of the metro footprint even now has substandrd ADSL or no ADSL. RIMS, long line length, rotten copper and many other factors limit many of us to sub ADSL1 or dialup speeds, let alone entry level ADSL2 speeds
Given the current fast tracked NBN project will come past my door in 6-9 years, this debate seems destined to continue through another couple of election campaigns. Most of my neighbours and myself have only have adsl for 2 years after years of complaining about the pair-gains excuse within 25km of the cbd of a capital city.
Wonder if Telstra will sell me a b&w television with my foxtel subscription?
“I see this kind of response often and am amazed at the lack of foresight of so many people.”
Yes I know what you mean – If people only bought today the assets they may need in 15 years the world would be a better place..
Why not build the assets when you need them.
But of course we need to get ready for the horror story of a family of 4 sitting around in multiple simultaneous 1080P 3D skype sessions.
Beam me up Scotty.
Regarding the NBN. I would settle for being able to connect to a local node in my lifetime than wait and wait and wait for the ten lane optical highway to appear at my door at some imaginary date in the distant future.
To be fair, others are saying the NBN needs more scrutiny http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/nbn_rollout_needs_monthly_audit_KHNgrotOa90XrBegTrmBeI
If the national carrier had never been privatised, we wouldn’t have been seeing the sort of obstacles to basic progress that we have been.
Yep
It’s not even quite that. If the national carrier had been privatised correctly, we wouldn’t have been seeing the sort of obstacles to basic progress that we have been.
If Telstra was split into a wholesale utility and a retail operation, we wouldn’t be having this debate.
Exactly.
+1, epic epic fail on the part of the state and it’s regulators.
In other parts of the world, the wholesale part of the former state telco is deploying FTTN with *no* massive subvention from the state for doing the bleeding obvious.
+1, epic epic fail on the part of the state
But to be sure…wash away the party responsible in this instance yeah?
Why the different stabnce, you’re rather prone to remind us who the responsible party is post-2007.
Yep – exactly.
Even after privatisation they could easily have forced Telstra to split.
Give each shareholder a shareholder in the new entity with the wholesale assets.
Regulate the wholesale company.
But that would have got in the way of the ‘big picture vision’ thing and having a knife fight with Sol.
Result – dumb strategy that will cost a fortune.
As much as I agree with you, a retarded majority deserves a retarded government. Just like all those Europeans who keep voting to save the Euro project. The trouble is that people never learn. The fact that Abbot is even a viable candidate is shocking to me. But then any suffering he causes will trouble me much less.
It’s a tax alright. And pricing Carbon was the LAST and least priority for it. Everyone knows it was concieved in the deal to get Gillard into power and buy off the Greens vote, who Labor kicked into touch last week. The Carbon Tax is a massive own goal. It’s purpose is to redistribute taxpayer money and honour Labor’s promise to the UN at Cancun.
So let’s dispense with the noble ideals that this was an honorable impost. It was done by deceit and this Govt deserves to pay dearly for it.
The NBN would never pass a CBA if it was ever subjected to one. And paying top dollar for a system that could very well be defunct within a decade is pure madness. This expanded version ( it was originally a 5 Billion project?) was concieved in a light bulb moment by Rudd- in short it was meant to be a vote grabber for the hipsters. It has been stuffed full of Labor mates and is entirely NON cost effective in its construct. The Govt employs every accounting trick available to hide it’s true costs. Deception and incompetence.
So here we again have ideals that for many are noble and important but handled appallingly by incompetence and greed by an illegitimate Govt. I hope that both the Carbon Tax and the NBN are scrapped , if only as a monument to the folly of Australians who brought this circus apon us.
“The NBN would never pass a CBA if it was ever subjected to one.”
That would depend upon the parameters of any such CBA. How many other kinds of basic public service delivery would we be up shit creek without that would not pass a CBA because not all of the benefits can be clearly defined in monetary terms?
So one broken promise renders it bad policy? Don’t be ridiculous.
It was a Howard policy for Christs’s sake.
Abbott plans to do exactly the same thing in a piecemeal fashion via choices made by a bunch of bureaucrats that ensures it will cost us much more in the long run.
The whole point of government doing the NBN is that it won’t pass a CBA, FFS. It’s long term infrastructure with huge benefits in timeframes that can’t be met on a conventional CBA.
The Libs are completely hypocritical, inept and counter to the national interest on both fronts.
“The Libs are completely hypocritical, inept and counter to the national interest on both fronts”
Counter to certain interests , yes. And a good thing they are too.
HnH,
The NBN has not even been costed FFS. If the Govt “is doing the NBN” why is it not in the Budget , FFS. More lies obfusaction and deception. More incompetence.
One broken promise? This conveniently omits the glaring facts that THIS particular broken promise got them into Govt and costs taxpayers tens of billions. It’s not the lie, which is bad enough. It’s what the lie was meant to obtain – the privelige to govern this Democratic nation. I know that doesn’t resonate with those who view Govt as some kind of a weekend footy match. But to many it is very important.
One broken promise? This conveniently omits the glaring facts that THIS particular broken promise got them into Govt and costs taxpayers tens of billions. It’s not the lie, which is bad enough. It’s what the lie was meant to obtain – the privelige to govern this Democratic nation. I know that doesn’t resonate with those who view Govt as some kind of a weekend footy match. But to many it is very important.
Labor and the Greens went into two elections with a policy of pricing CO2 and were duly voted in both times. The policy of pricing CO2 itself has been part of the Labor and Greens platforms for far longer.
I know that doesn’t resonate with people who think voters who make the wrong decision should be ignored. But to many it is very important.
Only in your Green/Left dreamworld doc.
You actually don’t know what you’re talking about. Carbon pricing has not cost tax-payers a dime. They have been more than compensated by tax cuts. It cost big polluters a lot, yes. But they can afford it. That’s the irony, carbon pricing is not only not a tax, it funds huge tax cuts that offset the price rises in carbon intensive goods.
“You actually don’t know what you’re talking about. Carbon pricing has not cost tax-payers dime”
Sure;
http://www.news.com.au/business/worklife/carbon-tax-compo-being-gambled-away/story-e6frfm9r-1226428729094
If I respond as I wish you will only delete it.
Yawn, more Murdoch propaganda. Read a more detailed analysis.
https://theconversation.edu.au/we-got-fed-a-line-but-carbon-tax-compo-wasnt-swallowed-by-pokies-11996
Remember folks, if it’s from Murdoch, it’s a lie.
MiningB: Seriously. You believe every article in The Australian is a lie?
You’ve been in the bush too long mate!
You’re right 3d. Okay, only the ones where he is trying to sway public opinion instead of reporting the actual facts
Even if the ‘carbon tax compo gambled away’ article was well researched and backed up, so what? As a Liberal supporter wouldn’t you agree that people should be able to spend money as they see fit?
Jason,
” As a Liberal supporter wouldn’t you agree that people should be able to spend money as they see fit?”
I don’t see it as “their” money Jason. It is money provided by people who worked for it, it is taxpayers money. Gov’t does not generate money, they take it from earners and then spend it.
To answer your question; NO, I don’t believe taxpayer provided money should be wasted on things like pokies, alcohol, drugs and cigarettes. I believe if you are given taxpayer money it should be used wisely for the necessities for which it is intended. Obviously, if there is taxpayer money available for those things then there is too much of it available.
Sounds like you are a sore loser H&H! You still have 6 months to influence the punters via this blog! Let me get this right H&H, 2 massive pieces of ‘state intervention’ IMPOSED upon the populace who do not want them and then you howl like a spoilt child at the smallness of the Liberal Party? Suck it up man – free markets would have delivered both of the ALP/Greens cock ups for a third of the price. If you want central planning go to China!!!
Didn’t the Liberals lose the last unloseable election (in Tasmania especially) because of their stance on the NBN?
Please show me where/how free markets would deliver fibre optic internet to 93% of the population of Australia.
Please explain for me why taxpayer money should be used to fund public infrastructure for faster access to pawn and music downloads;
http://musicfeeds.com.au/culture/scientists-unlock-the-wonderful-mysteries-of-internet-porn-sfw-chill/
Please explain for me why taxpayer money should be used to fund public infrastructure for faster access to pawn and music downloads;
This is what’s called a straw man argument.
doc,
OK so back a CBA and be done with it and stop putting up your rubbish notions of what is right and wrong.
No he isn’t, this is a glaring example of why you are dim.
Providing universal secondary school education would not likely pass a CBA within certain parameters, especially parameters framed in the mid 19th century.
Rusty,
You support any notion that gets you access to other peoples money. I am dim enough to be a wake up to the likes of parasites like you.
And another sign of the neorotic and paranoid reactionary, you see things that don’t exist.
Very few here are as devoutly capitalist as I am.
I endorse very few forms of welfare and I call for major welfare reforms, particularly to the old aged pension.
I am probably the harshest critic here of welfare directed towards the eldery.
So again, you suffer delusion and use it to frame your arguments.
I will also assert I make net payments to the welfare system, I do not draw net receipts.
Other than socialised education, which I endorse fully and to a much greater extent than we have now, there is very little of the existing welfare framework I believe is optimal.
But I think i a greater chance of teaching a chimpanzee how to solve a rubiks cube, than have your partisanship recede and understand a conflicting view to yours.
Rusty,
You are quite wrong. I do understand alternative views to mine, I respect them as being held with conviction. I am ready to concede any view of mine may be wrong and require change if I can be convinced of the efficacy of the alternate argument. Your juvenile insults and slurs meanwhile are meaningless.
And paying top dollar for a system that could very well be defunct within a decade is pure madness.
Please tell us what unknown technological revolution is going to render fibre optic communications obselete within a decade.
There is a technology on the horizon that goes eleventy times the speed of light?
technological revolution is going to render fibre optic communications
God will come up with something faster than speed of light in another decade.
(plenty of flat-earth voters who will believe that)
It’s not about the cable speed or the connection, is about the paradigm of communications that will change. 15 years ago when I was selling online banking, retail and payment systems via the internet it was laughed off as “straight out of the Jetsons” according to the leaders of industry then.
Today they are in a TCP and basements full of relay servers mindset, this requires costly bandwidth and centralised memory/disk for growth.
Change is inevitable as limits to that growth will demand it.
Even today with Google building code for mesh networking in to its latest OS release, we may begin to conceive in 15 years time every single powered device on earth connected wirelessly to its neighbor. That is all it needs for the paradigm to shift.
The best part of that being – no-one owns, controls or is able to manipulate its shape or design. It will just happen – a bit like the internet really.
So my view is that fibre optic is redundant in 15 years time maybe a lot sooner. But then mesh networking may be too. I have been in the game for 35 years and still know nothing
Oh yes – one thing I have learned first hand, the more people involved in a technology project, the more likely it is to turn to sh*t.
Even today with Google building code for mesh networking in to its latest OS release, we may begin to conceive in 15 years time every single powered device on earth connected wirelessly to its neighbor.
You can conceive as much as you want, it’s not going to change the fundamental limits and unreliability of wireless communications.
Physics is a harsh mistress.
The best part of that being – no-one owns, controls or is able to manipulate its shape or design. It will just happen – a bit like the internet really.
I think you are conflating the network and the things people do on it. The internet is quite carefully designed.
Those talking about mesh networking should be champing at the bit to get the NBN, because it will make high-bandwidth connections – both down and, more importantly, upstream – commonplace.
Good post.. but I am sure someone said the same things about the copper network when it was laid out. Should we have waited for fibre optic to show up?
Copper n/w should have been obsolete decades ago, but it isn’t. There will be innovation, but these innovations will have to adapt the hard infrastructure on the ground, just like they did with copper network for internet access.
” we may begin to conceive in 15 years time every single powered device on earth connected wirelessly to its neighbor”
This wireless everywhere vision is indeed a seductive one that is very appealing, however there are significant technical hurdles that must be over come, some of which are fundamental.
Conventional wireless communications is a broadcast communications paradigm that has users sharing the available bandwidth between each other (given that it is difficult for a devices to receive a transmission from a second device if a third device transmits at the same time).
“my view is that fibre optic is redundant in 15 years time maybe a lot sooner”
currently, throughput demands are only increasing, what technology is going to provide a greater carrying capacity than fibre in the next 15 years?
Perhaps you are forecasting a change in the communications paradigm to one in which there is a smaller requirement for throughput/bandwidth but what is your basis for this?
Mesh networking and wireless will never be able to compete with fixed fibre optic. Anyone with a basic knowledge of science understands that.
Mesh networking may show some value in countries with totalitarian regimes, but not in an environment where bandwidth usage is increasing exponentially.
Even today with Google building code for mesh networking in to its latest OS release
BTW, Google is also buying up and building fibre to home networks.
http://fiber.google.com/
@Jason
Mesh networking is its infancy and again was an example of a different communications paradigm not A solution. Your comments about wireless not being able to complete with fibre are based on the same assumptions as the docs on this site. Software not hardware are the comms constraints. One to many broadcast vs many to many.
Its about how things change when you connect, different people, devices and beliefs.
Is you TV connected? What about your electricity meter?
When they all are, and more, and your neighbors, and so on…what then?
It changes the conversation.
Fibre will be there but not leading the conversation, simply keeping up will become it purpose as the next generation of innovation changes the rules.
Hence, redundant!
If you ran Samsung would you want your design engineers thinking about fixed networks now?
“Your comments about wireless not being able to complete with fibre are based on the same assumptions as the docs on this site.”
OK let me explain my assupmtions then to see where you disagree.
Wireless is fundamentally uses RF broadcast (this allows a device to be mobile or untethered, but also requires all devices to share the channel) whereas fibre is a fixed waveguide (that requires a device to be at a particular location – the end of the fibre) that allows the device to use the channel exclusively.
In summary wireless = shared channel whereas fibre = dedicated channel thus fibre will always have greater throughput than wireless.
@ DrBob127
Wireless is only a shared channel if you want it to be – I run dedicated wireless links across huge distances without sharing them with anyone!
I state again – it doesn’t matter. When the nodes in a network are all many to many!
If you think that you can have
“every single powered device on earth connected wirelessly to its neighbor”
with each link being on separate and dedicated channel, then you are clearly in possesion of some very good channel assignment algorithms which will stand you in good stead to make a fortune.
Can you explain how you “run dedicated wireless links across huge distances without sharing them with anyone”?
“Wireless is only a shared channel if you want it to be ”
No, it is a shared channel if the system has been designed that way.
No matter how much I may want my home Wi-Fi channel to be dedicated to only my use, the system has been designed to be a shared channel, so the throughput that I see depends on how heavily other users around me are using their links.
When they all are, and more, and your neighbors, and so on…what then?
Then I still won’t be able to watch high quality 1080p video over my 1.5Mb ADSL line.
If you ran Samsung would you want your design engineers thinking about fixed networks now?
Of course – why would I want my engineers’ creativity constrained by the limitations of unreliable, low-bandwidth wireless connectivity ?
Can you explain how you “run dedicated wireless links across huge distances without sharing them with anyone”?
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess he’s talking about point-to-point microwave, or satellite uplinks.
you are clearly in possesion of some very good channel assignment algorithms…
and I should also add that you must also have a whole lot of spectrum to allocate
@ DrBob127
I wish – but we do have some cool stuff.
I am far from the pointy end of all this – I hire a few propeller heads that go to the meetings now – I just pay them, but my life in the technology industry has taught me not to be wedded to ANYTHING when it comes to talking about innovation and the future.
Now that consumers drive so much of what happens in my world – I have completely let go of all assumptions.
“Can you explain how you “run dedicated wireless links across huge distances without sharing them with anyone”?”
You pay more – or you have a “guy” that can fix things – if you know what I mean
One more sorry …
@DrBob127 “Wireless is only a shared channel if you want it to be ”No, it is a shared channel if the system has been designed that way.
Agreed it is both – we have what is designed and it is designed to be shared.
We need the design to change ……
Mav,
As a new comer, you have not yet grasped the incompetence of Labor. Stay long enough and you will.
Your sniping and slurring tend to show you are bereft of good argument. The slick one liners may appeal to the hip crowd and IT fans you cultivate but essentially it reflects a simpletons view.
May I be a bit more impolite to suggest it will also appeal to people with a passing grasp of science?
“May I be a bit more impolite to suggest it will also appeal to people with a passing grasp of science?”
You mean the gullible and easily led?
No. I mean those who do not let their Judeo-Christian beliefs to interfere with acceptance of proven science. You know.. like those who accept evolution, whilst still being good christians.
I love the free market as much as the next gullible and easily led libertarian, but I’m afraid that the laws of physics trump the laws of supply and demand every time!
GSM,
An argument based on opinion is meaningless. You can claim the NBN will be obsolete but it’s a bit rich to claim someone who based their opinion on physics reflects a “simpletons view”.
GD,
When you have the funding for it analysed and the benefits substantiated, THEN some kind of objective analysis is possible.
This has FA to do with science. It is how public moneys are allocated.For the IT set it is a taxpayer funded godsend. For the remaining 90 odd % it’s simply another thought bubble sucking up public money. Which, if history is a guide, will be a policy disaster and a funding balls up of white elephant proportions.
So do you have anything except ad homs to contribute?
GSM,
I’d be happy for a CBA to be done, but the problem is we just have no idea what technology could be leveraged from a full fibre network which makes a CBA extremely difficult to do – any result would be crystal ball gazing.
If we’re basing it on the way networks are leveraged at this moment it wouldn’t be worth it – no one would argue that – but how is that a rational approach given the changes in network use just over the last decade?
There will be uses we haven’t even dreamed of. This is not a project that a black and white mindset is helpful for – embrace the grey area.
GSM, I see you have been busy shifting the goal post from…
And paying top dollar for a system that could very well be defunct within a decade is pure madness.
to ..
This has FA to do with science. It is how public moneys are allocated.
.. after the soccer match has started…
Anyway, lets look at how the public moneys were allocated –
1. Rudd went into the 2007 elections, promising to build a super-fast nationwide broadband network if he won. He did win, I don’t think you can dispute that.
2. It was originally conceived to be a Public-private partnership with an RFP floated.
3. Then Sol Trujilo happened (another fine example of great shareholder value destroyer, but that’s another story). Telstra’s response to the RFP was all of 12 pages!
4. Given the lukewarm response from the private sector, Government decides to go it alone.
Now where exactly was due process not followed in allocating public moneys? Was it at step 4? But didn’t we go into the 2010 elections with the knowledge that NBN will be built entirely with taxpayers contribution?
Doesn’t time go backwards if you exceed the speed of light?
I will be able to watch the re-runs of ‘That 70′s show” in the 70′S
He already is faster than the speed of light!
@ DrBob127
“802.11 protocol suite is a set of PHYsical and data link layer (actually the MAC sublayer) protocols.”
That is correct – the protocol suite referred to here is the standrds for software that describes how the a range of wavelengths are communicated across. The number comes from IEEE (an even larger collection of meeting fans than ICANN
)
What this basically means is that as the software standards become smarter and we use different frequencies 2-60 Ghz we get more bang for our buck.
In the end its is software that makes it all happen – those frequencies are what they are – like the microwave link I use across my companies. Its how its can be redesigned that gives one the edge.
Can you prohibit others from eventually using those same frequencies?
It is a combination of software AND hardware.
The MAC protocols (Medium Access Control – are used to determine who transmits when) are entirely software based.
They PHY protocols are split into some software-based that append the MPDU with a preamble (for receiver synchronisation) a start frame delimiter that tells the devices when a valid frame begins and some rate and size information and then there is the hardware based PMD (Physical Medium Dependent) layer that takes those 1′s and 0′s and modulates them onto a baseband signal (which to be fair is becoming increasingly done by software defined radio) but is then upconverted to the carrier frequency by the hardware. The last bit, the generation of the signal to be transmitted will requires dedicated hardware for a particular frequency or frequency range. Changing the frequency from 2 to 60 GHz will require new hardware and is not a simple as just updating the software
“Can you prohibit others from eventually using those same frequencies?”
If you have paid for a license at a particular frequency then other users should already be prohibited (by ACMA I think) from using your channel.
If you are using an unlicensed channel, then anyone can use it.
RF is messy and very complex.
@ DrBob127
I wasn’t suggesting that its software only.
@drsmithy
You probably need to re-read what I wrote.
“unreliability of wireless communications”
Yes they are unreliable – look around the room you are in and consider the number of devices that are actually connected? What distance is that connection over then go forward 15 years and “conceive” again. How many new 802.11 protocols have you used since first setting up a wireless connection – they are all a response to that reliability – its an ever changing model – with more to come I am sure. But even so – its not about the protocol either or the wavelength.
When I was talking TCP in 1998 – it was over 1200 BAUD at best and as reliable as Westpac Online banking access on a Monday. It didn’t stop us getting here, with or without major Government initiatives. (other than the US Armed Forces – god bless them).
“Physics is a harsh mistress.”
I have found diggers, electric saws and shovels much harsher in my technology life! Especially after newly and carefully signposted cables are laid on public access land.
Again the physics you refer to, has nothing to do with it – as it didn’t influence the uptake of smart phones, tablets or other mobile devices. It won’t influence the automation of every device on earth. It just will happen. Not because it is a grand plan or that I know everything there is about technology. Just because now the population in technology is very different to the one 15 years ago and in 15 years time will be even more terrifying.
“The internet is quite carefully designed.”
Gosh – that one will take a long discussion – how about we start with IP number allocation – the single most important and fundamental construct of the internet – consider the IP address you are using right now and – if you are inside your own network it probably starts with 192.168.x.x – hey so does everyone else in their homes and probably office too (unless they are real nerds) – that’s not careful designed by any stretch of the imagination. That’s Y2K lazy design. If however you have a fixed IP address – imagine how you got that number and try and figure out why. Its a fantastic journey that everyone should go on.
Having been involved in ICANN and watching the latest machinations on the IANA review process, I offer you up as a speaker at the next global love session – they will enjoy your perspective.
“mesh networking should be champing at the bit to get the NBN”
Why – they don’t need it – you probably should check out mesh models and how they work. I only use it as an example of a paradigm – not a solution or a replacement for the current view of the world.
However, if your argument is based on current political preferences then it really doesn’t matter. If you like what the NBN stands for then go for it – its happening and you can vote again for it in September. I am not challenging your political view at all. Just don’t confuse political objectives with drivers of technology innovation.
Booboo, I think you’re on the money.
“Again the physics you refer to, has nothing to do with it – as it didn’t influence the uptake of smart phones, tablets or other mobile devices.”
That’s just nonsense.
“how about we start with IP number allocation”
Sure, IPv4 was a mess because they didn’t look far enough into the future. IPv6 and the way it’s assigned is very slick.
“– they are all a response to that reliability”
no they are not. they are generally all about trying to increase the bandwidth of the (shared) link.
TCP (and I am assuming you mean Transmission Control Protocol) is used as a transport layer protocol to ensure reliable end-to-end connectivity. the 802.11 protocol suite is a set of PHYsical and data link layer (actually the MAC sublayer) protocols.
Yes they are unreliable – look around the room you are in and consider the number of devices that are actually connected?
Indeed, and when I run a latency and bandwidth benchmark on all of them I get a different result every time. That’s in fairly ideal conditions, as well, anyone who’s ever been to a large public function, or been in an electrically noisy environment, knows how poorly wireless deals with less than ideal conditions.
Wireless has a lot of great applications. It sucks – especially at scale – for scenarios where predictability and reliability are important.
When I was talking TCP in 1998 – it was over 1200 BAUD at best and as reliable as Westpac Online banking access on a Monday. It didn’t stop us getting here, with or without major Government initiatives. (other than the US Armed Forces – god bless them).
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. However, I will note that in 1998, even a 28.8k modem would have been considered on the slow side, so name-dropping “1200 baud” isn’t really impressive.
Again the physics you refer to, has nothing to do with it – as it didn’t influence the uptake of smart phones, tablets or other mobile devices.
You are conflating the technology and how it is used again.
Physics dictates how fast and reliable their network connectivity is, and can be. It says that, so far as we know, wireless comms will never be as fast or reliable as wired comms.
Gosh – that one will take a long discussion – how about we start with IP number allocation [...]
Assuming – and I must based on the context – you’re talking about the regional assignment of IP ranges, that’s not even close to “the single most important and fundamental construct of the internet”. It’s an implementaion semantic.
Further, you are, once again, conflating the technology of networking and how it is used.
Just don’t confuse political objectives with drivers of technology innovation.
I get the feeling you are throwing around combinations of letters and numbers you don’t really understand.
@General Disarray
Not sure how one responds to “That’s just nonsense”
However, “IPv6 and the way it’s assigned is very slick.”
OK – that is a comment that I have to respond to – IPv6 has to be interoperable with IPv4 and its related legacy issues, IPv6 needs all the ISP equipment to be upgraded, issues with intersack between Ipv4 and 6 means extra software development and testing to protect against security holes.
Anyway – I can go on – I was responding to the comment by the other doc that the internet was quite carefully designed.
Using IP addressing as a simple example of the lack of design at the outset.
That design never foresaw the current paradigm nor the future that I am supposing!
@ drsmithy
So all your responses are using today’s publicly available wireless models, hence my comments about 1998 and how far we have travelled.
I would continue this discussion with vigour if it weren’t for the unpleasantness creeping into your commentary.:
“I get the feeling you are throwing around combinations of letters and numbers you don’t really understand.”
“so name-dropping “1200 baud” isn’t really impressive”
In response to that – i am willing to sit across the table and discuss this face to face with anyone that is willing – happy to arrange it as well.
Once again – i find myself frustrated on this site by the inevitable personal attack one receives when one tries to present a viewpoint that challenges.
It was called 1200 BAUD, I am sorry if that insults anyone.
@ DrBob127
“no they are not. they are generally all about trying to increase the bandwidth of the (shared) link”
Agreed, its both! Reliability and bandwidth, they are often hand in hand – a faster feedback loop means you can have more collisions but it doesn’t really matter
So all your responses are using today’s publicly available wireless models, hence my comments about 1998 and how far we have travelled.
Which brings me back to my original point: what unknown technological revolution is going to obselete fibre inside a decade ?
That’s not “unknown” as in “we don’t know what clock speed Intel’s next CPU will be”, that’s “unknown” as in “would be a completely revolutionary and unpredictable breakthrough in data communications”.
Mesh networking is not a solution. Mesh networking is a usage scenario.
Sub-space time-void technology is not too far away and actually allows for signals to arrive BEFORE they were sent that way all possible data can be timed to arrive instantly. It’s a promising technology.
I think GSM is right about the possibility of it being defunct within a decade. A speed of light-based NBN totally ignores the possibility of using quantum entanglement for communications.
Actually no. My physics is a little shady, but these guys seem to know what they’re on about: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=231008
If it will be defunct within a decade by a new technology then that new technology will then be defunct a decade after that.
It’s like using a tape recorder and not upgrading to the newest technology because something new will eventually come along. It still works right?
If we were living in a socialist paradise where a central committee were telling us what we could or could not have based on benefit cost analyses, then you would have a point. However, we live in a democracy, where if we vote for something to be done, we expect government to toddle off and do our bidding – not have some central planning committee do a benefit cost analysis and tell us whether we can have it.
That is one of the functions of government, to give us what we want, after we have voted for it. Then tax us to pay for it.
The question is: Do we want an NBN or not? If we do, then vote Labor, if we do not, vote Coalition. Having said that, if we vote one way or another, ffs let’s not whine about the consequences.
“And paying top dollar for a system that could very well be defunct within a decade is pure madness.”
You have just shown you don’t understand the basics of the NBN and as such should stop commenting on it.
GSM I think you have many valid points to make and I do want to hear your opinion.
But it’s hard to take your comments on-board while you’re arguing the ‘Liberals always perfect, Labor always terrible’ stance. Both teams are obviously pretty bad. You seem to have a blind spot for anything the Liberals do wrong, and it comes across as a glaring bias that is greatly undermining your argument. Not having a go at what you try to say – more having a go at what you’re leaving out I think.
I’m about as swinging as voters get too. So I’m just saying that while your opinions probably go down well with others that already agree with you, the delivery isn’t working for someone like me (who I assume is your target audience). That is, assuming you were hoping to win some Gen Y hearts and minds – and weren’t just posting to argue with people just as entrenched in their opinion!
+1
russ,
As far as I know you don’t moderate this site. So determining what is or not to be posted doesn’t rest with you. You and everyone here posts their opinions. I do similarly.
You ascribe too much motive to me. I’m assuming everyone here is adult enough to draw their own conclusions about our Govt so how they vote is their business and not my concern. Are you saying that this is a GenY blog and therefore any alternatives propositions to Green/Left is to be censored?
“You seem to have a blind spot for anything the Liberals do wrong” No I don’t. I have voted Labor several times in the past, possibly before you were born. As I have said many times; in the end there will be just 2 choices for who will govern. Just 2. Governing is crucially important to our economic direction and the future of this country as we all (should) know. I , and the majority of voters I see, happen to think Labor is causing serious damage to our country , economy and our democracy and dont want to reward them with more time on the Treasury benches. Others are free to think whatever they want.
As is commonplace on MB, the title “Paying for Dr No” is clearly partisan. So, comments responding are framed to that I imagine.
Its definitely not a generation specific blog, and I definitely don’t want any censoring. My ref to gen Y was that they’re the next generation of voters coming in and don’t have the life experiences and often inflexible opinions of the older generations. So they tend to be a bit more open minded (often naive) and are looking for information to make their own opinions from. Not that older generations can’t swing of course, but people tend to polarize more as they get older.
I already assumed you were voting before I was born – all the more reason I want to hear what you have to say. We are all prisoners of our experience. The only way to break free of it is to hear from people unlike yourself. Which is what I’m trying to do here
Just a critique of the format, not the message itself – the point being its something I actually do want to hear, not censor. But you tend to censor it yourself by making it inaccessible.
russ,
Thanks for your well meant opinion, I’ll take it on board.
As people get older I think they tend to get more sensitive to time. And therefore don’t have time for bull$h*t when it is accompanied by obvious waste. Money is too hard to come by to see it wasted on whims and fanciful notions.
I think the rejection towards labour is that what ever they touch turns into a pile of ash, literally, pink bats anyone?
The carbon tax and NBN are good idea’s but Labour can’t execute a sausage sizzle.
We need a government with direction and the capability to execute core infrastructure and policies without wasting billions of dollars.
That’s rubbish as well. You can disagree with the details of what was stimulated but the execution was excellent.
The pick bats deaths rate was below industry standard.
The stimulus was rolled out fast and the waste that there was is irrelevant. Get money out is the whole point.
“The pick bats deaths rate was below industry standard.”
Thats a bit cringe-worthy.
So what? It’s true pure and simple. IT’s not me politicising those deaths. It’s Abbott and Co.
New Australian here. One thing I never understood was how Labour got blamed for the pink bats. Why would it be government’s fault if Australians rip off their fellow Aussies with shoddy installations etc. ?
The deaths that occurred while installing insulation were covered by worker safety regulations, which is primarily a state matter.
However, our politicians know full well that our media don’t do journalism any more – they just quote whatever the politicians say – so the whole debate ended up being about Peter Garret. It was pathetic, but you’d better get used to that sort of thing. Its what we do here.
H&H is correct. House fires due to poor insulation or lighting installs are not uncommon and the fire/death per install rate is well known in the industry and with the fire service.
Of course there was an increase in reported fires happening at the time as more folks were getting insulation installed and some of the providers were less than quality with their installations.
But the numbers don’t lie.
Given the rate of installations, the number of house fires was below average.
It happens all the time, but just isn’t in your face these days like it was when it was ‘newsworthy’.
A major cause of the fires are those halogen downlights, which are recessed into the roof and generate a lot of heat. If they are not properly dealt with, they can cause the insulation to ignite.
Sometimes this is the fault of the installer, and sometimes the owner doing a DIY job without understanding the issues.
It’s the employers responsibility to look after their staff. The blood is on their employers hands.
If you use the same logic, Abbott slaughtered hundreds of people while Minister of Health under Howard because of poor funding to health measures.
It’s how things are twisted here James. If I remember correctly, during the insulation stimulus the amount of home installations went up by a factor of 15. The amount of accidents, injuries and deaths went up by a factor of five. If it was something that Tony had of championed, all he would have said was ‘Shit Happens’.
But no, the Murdoch/LNP coalition decided to try to blame deaths on the government. Disgusting.
The pink bats debacle was the best exmple of media-driven mass hysteia I have ever personally witnessed.
It was never made clear to the public that what we were seeing was not a massive increase in the rate of serious incidents per installation but rather, a massive increase in the rate of installations themselves – around 60 000 in a normal year vs 1.2 million in the 12 or so months the programme ran for. The rate of incidents did not increase at all, we were just witnessing in the space of one year, the number of incidents that would normally occur over a span of about 15 years.
It’s as stupid as if I tried to argue that the much higher number of car accidents in Brisbane than Gladstone proves that Brisbane drivers are all dangerous idiots. What rubbish! Of course there are more traffic accidents in Brisbane – there’s about 20 times as many vehicles on the road.
+100
Lef-tee,
Try argueing that with the thousands of households that had to live under dodgy wiring and the threat of a burning roof space. The legacy of the batts has been underplayed.
I must completely disagree GSM – it’s been MASSIVELY overplayed. Same as the so-called school halls debacle – I’ve not personally seen a bad one.
Did thousnds of legitimate, qualified builders and installers suddenly become massively incompetent shonks and con men simply because government spent the money?
Around 1 in every 8 houses in Australia recieved insulation under the programme – shouldn’t we have been seeing a national epidemic of houses burning down and people being fried alive in their beds? Shouldn’t every one of us know someone who it has happened to, given the sheer number of shonks that were alledgedly out there?
It was pure mass hysteria.
Try argueing that with the thousands of households that had to live under dodgy wiring and the threat of a burning roof space.
Which couldn’t have happened otherwise because…?
But… but… but… big govermnent… Barack Obama… left wing socialists… they’ll take our freedom don’t ya know!!!
But how is this the Govt’s fault? Surely if the Govt had dropped safety standards (they didn’t and couldn’t) then it would be. But just because a few unscrupulous operators got into the business and tried to cut corners can’t really be attributed to the Govt.
But how is this the Govt’s fault?
It’s always the Government’s fault. They either did too much, not enough, or the wrong thing.
You’d struggle to find anyone who likes to scapegoat more than conservatives.
Your not focusing on the point of my post, the fact is the government can’t organise, manage or execute policies in a economically feasible way. The amount of waste is a disgrace.
We all know that, do you think the other side is better ? Everything done by governments over the course of history (in every country I might add) has costed 2, 3 or 4 times what it would have costed if it were made with perfect execution. But I am happy that at least it gets made, I feel my tax dollars are doing something useful rather than just paying high politician salaries.
A lot of times private enterprise does not do it because is too risky, it is the first time it is being done, etc. so the unknowns are too much for private enterprise to bear the risks. The government does it with some costs blow ups and then the media and economists all jump saying “waste!waste!”, there is a phrase for that, goes something like this: “only the ones that DO something make mistakes”
A lot of people is happy with sitting in a couch and pointing out the mistakes of those that are busy DOING something.
Your kidding right?
“Something useful”
My definition of waste is the bloated government spending billions employing paper shufflers…
For the record I think all politicians are leeches on society.
Do you honestly believe Marius Kloppers or Tom Albanese are better at managing investments than the government sector?
Between the two, they blew up $50 billion in shareholder value in 5 years. And they got paid handsomely for it.
The endeavours they are involved with are considerably higher risk than anything any government is ever involved with, short of war.
PS, BHP were around $39 five years ago. They are currently $36.90 and have been at $39 in the last few days. In that period they have paid quite a lot in dividends. A bit hard to say that they have blown shareholder value, especially given the GFC is in that period.
Pollies bear the risk of being voted out if they screw up.
Here, the risk was borne entirely by the shareholder, not the CEOs. CEOs got golden parachutes for putting someone else’s capital at risk.
What was your point again?
Alex, that’s $50 billion in asset write-downs, not loss of market value.. which is another matter.
Alex,
You are quite right that the activities involved are high risk. That is unquestionably true.
What is also true is that these companies made gross errors that would have had a newly graduated project manager sacked.
For one example, just check how much money was spent on the Olympic Dam project in South Australia. Then ask, why was it stopped? Answer, because the technology it was predicated on was not feasible. Ok, so BHP proceeded on a project which was not even technically feasible in the first place.
Given that mining is a risky environment, you would think that a risk analysis would be done before the project got under way, do you not? Standard Directors’ Duties there. One of the items on the risk analysis would surely have been, technical feasibility, surely? That Olympic Dam project should not have gotten to the Board, based on a preliminary risk analysis. It should not have gotten past the Board on the same basis.
However, if a company in a risky business cannot undertake a risk analysis. It is hardly a plausible excuse for the board or management to cite risk as a reason for failure.
Same same for the labour shortages. These companies knew full well that they were engaging in activities that would strain the ability of the nation to provide suitable human resources. Did they sit down with Government before and outline the training task? Did they negotiate in advance to determine what their inputs might need to be etc etc. (This is a whole post worth, but you get the point). Or did they just plough ahead, heads in sand, hoping that somehow the human resouces would appear magically?
Put bluntly, yes, mining is a risky industry, therefore the patent failure of major companies to undertake risk analyses is what makes their management and board performance culpable.
Yes, I know that. But companies are writing down the value of some assets and upping the value of others all the time. All CEOs make mistakes. Sometimes they are big ones. It’s the nature of the game.
It’s all too easy to be right with the benefit of hindsight. Much harder to get it right in advance.
That reply was to Mav, obviously.
emess, I think you are speculating. What is your source for these pearls?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brNeCkflKAI
Harsh but mostly fair.
All CEOs make mistakes.
Thank you for finally admitting private sector isn’t any better.
Sometimes they are big ones. It’s the nature of the game.
You don’t get it, do you! – shareholders take the risk, CEOs get the reward regardless of whether the risk paid off or not.
And even if they are big ones – the CEO still walks away with a lot of money to show for it.
Alex, you only need to google for a couple of minutes to find things like:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/322791,bhp-billiton-wins-more-time-for-olympic-dam.aspx
Which has within it ” BHP delayed the planned expansion of the mine in August, saying it would focus on developing “new technologies” to come up with a less capital-intensive design for the expansion.”
No speculation required. BHP screwed it up…and the only way they could have screwed it up is by bungling their risk analysis.
Whether CEOs are overpaid is an entirely different issue to whether we should accept they will make mistakes, or how competent they are compared to politicians, or how complex and risky their enterprises are.
In my view CEOs are worth whatever companies are prepared to pay them, by definition. YMMV
emess, not at all. It simply means that the perceived risk changed between when they made the original decision and when they decided not to go ahead. (I wonder if that had anything to do with a certain Japanese power plant?)
Companies do this all the time. You are being naive if you think that a company the size of BHP would consider a project the size of the Olympic Dam extension without an adequate risk assessment.
In my view CEOs are worth whatever companies are prepared to pay them, by definition.
By that logic you should have no problems with any actions taken by a democratically elected Government.
Wrong, drsmithy. The correct analogy is that I believe politicians are worth what the public is prepared to pay them as well.
I regularly get pissed off with both politicians and CEOs. My personal opinion of what they are really worth might be very different. But in the real world, everybody is worth what they can command in the marketplace, by definition.
Alex, now it is you who are speculating…and wildly.
The reason given for the delay was that they need to develop the technology to make it economic.
What is so hard to understand about that?
They did not say that some existing technology was ok, but some other factor intervened to make the project viable. What they said was that they need five years to develop the technology to make it so. So what pray tell is the reason they did not do this development before they started the project? Basic project management 101. In fact basic common sense 101.
BHP was caught red handed. They made a mistake that would fail an undergraduate student doing project management.
If you think I am naive to criticise management for spending millions on a project for which they have admitted there was no appropriate technology developed, well I have a perpetual motion machine to sell to you too. It is not developed yet…along with the alternative technologies we should wait for rather than build the NBN.
LOL. Please bone up on PMBOK a bit before you reply.
PS, maybe they just underestimated how long it would take to develop the necessary technology. Wouldn’t be the first time, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.
These companies are at the forefront of mining technology.
The reason given for the delay was that they need to develop the technology to make it economic.
1. You know for a fact this was the real reason, and the only real reason?
2. What was economic five years ago may not be economic now.
3. Don’t use stupid jargon. It is irrelevant whether I know about PMBOK or not. I’m sure the BHP folk do. I’d be pretty damn sure they have a lot of people much smarter than you or I.
4. Have you read the initial risk assessment? Do you know what it said about the technology required?
Putting the merits of the policy to one side, there’s is a big problem with the carbon tax in that the compensation provided via the tax system is fixed and benchmarked against the expected carbon prices at the time ($29/t from FY16 and rising). Now that we are linked to the Euro scheme the actual price is likely to be <$10/t from FY16.
Compo significantly exceeds revenue from FY16 onwards.
The Gov will need to do something about it but god only knows how you scrap the scheme AND the compo.
That’s the discussion we should be having. Making it work best, not misrepresenting and scrapping it for political gain.
I am only going to talk about the NBN as being in IT I see the benefits of having one. I try not to make judgements on issues I don’t fully understand as the carbon tax.
Reading the comments is enough to understand why we have the governments and policies we have. It drives me mad.
Where would Australia be if it were always managed by right wing economists ?
Would we have a Harbour Bridge ? Would we have an Opera House ? Would we have any other piece of infrastructure that was too costly to build at the time ?
We are always blaming governments for their lack of vision and their short term policies. This is a great example ! The NBN is a long term plan/vision, it takes a long time to build, therefore people don’t see the benefits immediately and just starts to criticize it just for the sake of it. Talk about instant gratification mentality ! (and we are adults here not kids)
Of course it is expensive!, of course it is not immediately profitable!, that’s why it is a piece of infrastructure that can only be built by the government, not a private enterprise, it will take years to show the true value, plus all the non-monetary benefits it will have, if used correctly in the health sector it can save lives for Gods sake ! (put a price on that economists !!)
Let’s put it this way, would you rather have your tax payer money go into something useless or something useful ?, the NBN is useful believe me.
As much as I don’t like any side of the politics in this country, I am going to side with Labor on this one, and if the coalition keeps the rhetoric of dismantling it, they will not get my vote.
“Where would Australia be if it were always managed by right wing economists?”
We certainly wouldn’t have public transport (such as it is here).
Where would Australia be if it were always managed by right wing economists ?
Much more like America.
Economists are just the useful idiots, or sometimes the guns for hire.
The US is really a plutocracy by proxy.
Nothing wrong with long term plans.
Nothing wrong with ensuring that new connections to new houses have technology suited to the future. (optical)
Nothing wrong with ensuring houses that have very poor or no access to the internet are provided with access using technology suited to the future. (optical)
However, there IS something wrong with ripping up large chunks of infrastructure that is quite capable of meeting the current and likely needs of most/many users for a long time yet. (HFC and good ADSL connections)
There is something wrong when the main reason for doing was simply the politics of being seen to have the ‘vision thing’.
The fact that so little progress has been made to date and that even the NBN boss is starting to talk about investigating alternative approaches merely highlights that the costs of delivering on the ‘big promise’ are starting look mountainous.
Sanity will prevail because at the end of the day the majority of the population want to pay for things they need rather than things others imagine they need.
Yes, more than a little disconcerting when Quigley starts questioning direction of the project. If takeup rates continue at current levels it will be a disaster.
You forget to think about the benefits of ubiquitous access to speed. Rather than people having anywhere from 1Mbit to 20Mbit speeds using ADSL dependednt on a miriad of factors, fibre pretty much ensures everyone with a connection gets the complete advertised speed. Once this is achieved, business can start to plan und utilize the bandwidth. Who is going to develop somethign now, when maybe the top 5% of subscribers can use it as they are the only ones with the required bandwidth. Would you invest time and money on that nice 5%? What abou if that 5% became 100%?
What about maintinence costs of the aging copper. Going to rip most of that out and replace it?
What about when ADSL based tech can’t keep up any more with the speeds consumers demand? Ar e you going to do piecemeal upgrades to suburbs or streets in the future? Is that going to cost more or less to do than the NBNco roolout machine will now that it is mobilized. Surely there is some massive scales of ecconomy there.
I also challenge your assertion that HFC or ADSL will meet peoples needs for any decent period of time. Maybe 5 years? Hang on, maybe just 1 election cycle. Oh look, surprise surprise!
What are these applications that consumers are demanding that require HFC and viable copper to be ripped up now?
I am already watching decent resolution pay to view movies/TV on my big telly using nothing more than a cheap blue ray player and using pretty average ADSL connection that runs from the local exchange several kilometers away.
The waste is not the laying of fibre to new houses or to people who don’t have access currently. They need access and it may as well be fiber.
The waste is the re-wiring of large chunks of suburbia well before it is needed.
It is worth keeping in mind that existing apartment buildings will never be fiber to the unit – retro fitting would be a nightmare. They will all keep using copper to a connection in the basement at best.
What are these applications that consumers are demanding that require HFC and viable copper to be ripped up now?
The NBN isn’t about now, it’s about the next few decades.
I am already watching decent resolution pay to view movies/TV on my big telly using nothing more than a cheap blue ray player and using pretty average ADSL connection that runs from the local exchange several kilometers away.
You need 5-10 Megabits for good quality 1080p video. More for 3D. LOTS more for 4k video.
And that’s only assuming one stream. Obviously if your wife and 2.3 kids all want to watch something different at the same time, the bandwidth requirements scale similarly.
It is worth keeping in mind that existing apartment buildings will never be fiber to the unit – retro fitting would be a nightmare. They will all keep using copper to a connection in the basement at best.
I’d expect the typical apartment block more than a few stories would have comms lines going to per-floor aggregation areas before going to a central point.
Copper over short runs like that should be good for 1Gb, maybe even 10Gb in newer buildings.
When the new housing estates – that have optical fiber – start building fences to stop the ‘peasants’ with measly HFC or ADSL 2+ from getting in to watch Home and Away in 4K, that will be the day to start talking about ripping up the HFC and the copper from the node to the house.
Until then there is simply no need to be spending a fortune on infrastructure that is not yet needed.
Wasting money and time on duplicating stuff that does not need replacement NOW will simply delay the availability and increase the cost to those who really need it.
HnH, if costs are your concern perhaps the $10,000,000,000 Green Money unit dismantling will free up some ready cash
Very few on MB will ever question Govt expenditure because to them it is this great big pot of endless money that just must keep on giving.
Even while we see Europe and the US going through such turmoil and struggles , they still embrace the Debt economy rather than face up to the bald truth that Govt is spending beyond OUR means.They prefer the make believe of Nanny Govt must be there to make life more bearable for them.
The whole bloody country is spending beyond its means, at least the NBN is something that may be useful and may improve our productivity as a nation, we are going to have a tough time as it is when realitiy hits and we have a TOT crisis . I just found that the Jap’s have bought dairy farmers.
The big issue is our competitivness as a nation and I have no issue with the Govt running a surplus and cutting debt when we have a strong terms of trade, but either party are going to have to deal with a worsening trade balance, and cutting govt expenditure will lead to rising unemployment which is the price we will have to pay. I have no confidence in either party.
May be useful, May improve…
Jack, it’s over $40 Billion. And growing.
Do you have any idea what that could buy? For Education, Health, Defence, Roads, rail, airports, help for those in real need… I could go on.
Do you not think that such massive expenditure should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and audit, to ensure it’s perceived benefits are clearly measured or quantified?
The issue really is not about the NBN itself but the appalling process by which it was concieved , funded, managed and executed. Stacked up against Australia’s legitimate other needs, the NBN is a monumental waste of taxpayer money.
Do you have any idea what that could buy? For Education, Health, Defence, Roads, rail, airports, help for those in real need… I could go on.
Oh, please. The guy who complains every other day about confiscatory taxation is shedding crocodile tears about public infrastructure ? The position you represent doesn’t _believe_ in public infrastructure.
Your hypocrisy is sickening.
“The position you represent doesn’t _believe_ in public infrastructure.”
Prove that statement doc.
I wasn’t shedding crocodile tears for public infrastructure, thats is simply you perverting the argument yet again. What I was showing , even though you steadfastly refuse to get it, is that waste has a cost and public money can be MUCH better spent.
If you don’t agree with that then fine, by all means state why so we all can see the wisdom of your argument.
Prove that statement doc.
Practically every statement you make about any sort of public expenditure decries it as waste.
You constantly call for lower taxation, despite it already being at the lowest point in thirty-odd years. When questioned on how public expenditures would be funded, you either answer it shouldn’t be publicly funded (ie: it’s waste) or that it will be funded from
the libertarian magic pudding“savings”.The only sort of public expenditure you have approved of, are baby bribes and other forms of middle-class welfare, handing cash to people who don’t need it.
What I was showing , even though you steadfastly refuse to get it, is that waste has a cost and public money can be MUCH better spent.
You’ve “shown” nothing of the sort.
When you’re calling for cuts to middle class welfare and tax dodges to fund “Education, Health, Defence, Roads, rail, airports, help for those in real need”, I might believe you actually give a damn about those things for anything other than parroting right-wing rhetoric.
“Jack, it’s over $40 Billion. And growing.
Do you have any idea what that could buy?”
A shed-load more dams in Northern Australia?
“The $27.5bn Government component of the NBN is funded by debt, through the issuing of Australian Government Bonds. That is, the Federal Government offers our AAA-rated bonds to investors, at an interest rate of about 4% (depending on the term).
The NBN however, will provide a return of about 7%. This means that (once the network is operational), the NBN will begin repaying those bonds at a higher rate than what Government is paying on the debt. By 2034, the entire Government investment (including the interest) will have been repaid by the users of the network, leaving the Government owning a valuable asset (the NBN network) and no associated debt. Big users of the network (those who choose the high speed and high volume plans) will contribute more towards repayment of the debt, and actually subsidise those on smaller plans.
Taxpayers don’t really have anything to do with NBN funding. It is users of the network who will pay to build it, whether they are taxpayers or not.
This is completely different to the majority of Government spending, which doesn’t earn any return.”
~http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/
“Practically every statement you make about any sort of public expenditure decries it as waste”
Then follows your emotional daily diatribe defending your precious wasteful public spending and advocation of growing our Debt. One wonders why.
My argument has always been for sensible spending and cutting of waste. That is all.
You vociferously spruick that Govt MUST NOT live within it’s means. It MUST spend and grow Debts. Govt MUST re-distribute wealth. Just spend- she’ll be right. You lefty god Keynes said so.
How about you come honestly clean doc. Do you work in the Dept for Climate Control or soemething similar? How about some disclosure.
doc,
Just saw your response on your profession. Noted.
He won’t dismantle the NBN. They’ll say they are while renaming it and slowing the roll out.
I’ve no doubt the Carbon Tax will go. They can then “rightfully” remove all of the handouts given to those to help compensate with higher payments ergo diehard lower socio Labor voters. They’ll need to get it past the Senate of course but I have that feeling that the Greens are well on course for self immolation with Milne stamping her feet and going further and further left with every utterance.
They won’t dismantled it, they’ll do something worse.
Fiber to the NODE.
I think labors best bet is somehow tie the NBN in to house flipping and mining, Australians would be pro NBN extremists then.
From reading the comments on this thread, it seems reasonable to conclude we are a nation bitterly divided. Has there ever been a time in history when Australians were as divided as they are now?
World Series Cricket v The Australian Cricket Board.
Shudder – Never mention the war !!!
The other “explanation” for the wrecking approach of “whatever it takes” Tony to the NBN, is alignment of Tony’s plan with the interests of Rupert Murdoch and News Corp.
Do not underestimate the threat that the NBN poses to Murdoch. He doesn’t.
As he stated in the Levison inquiry, the proliferation of the “disruptive technologies” of the internet have severely upset the cosy arrangements of his existing business models and he will do what ever he can to preserve the status quo for as long as possible.
The longer Murdoch can stall/block/wreck the roll out of the open access model of the NBN the longer he can milk his existing monopolies. He will then use his substantial leverage with the coalition to parlay a protected position within the new enviroment. That is what he does.
It’s interesting that more and more folk I know are willing to donate money to support independent sites on Uncle Rupert’s “passing fad” than pay for the MSM sites like his.
It must be a terrible blow to his ego.
I’m sure he hangs on your every word MB.
I know he doesn’t. Everytime I try to post my thoughts on his propaganda machine, they never make it through moderation.
Hang on! That means I’m a threat!
Go me!
One of the most disappointing aspects of this whole sorry tale has been the role of Malcom Turnbull.
Yes, very sad seing Malcolm argue against the NBN.
One of the most disappointing aspects of this whole sorry tale has been the role of Malcom Turnbull.
Turnbull is now in full I-have-no-integrity-and-will-toe-the-party-line mode, easily seen from his appearance on Q&A last night.
The old media model has been in serious and accelerating decline without the NBN. It’s not obvious that stopping the NBN will do anything to rescue the publishing dinosaurs from extinction. Really, opposition to the NBN is not technical or financial. It is political/ideological. and is a good example of LNP political strategy.
The LNP and their allies have political methods which are very simple and have been very effective – oppose everything. They have applied this to nearly every single Labor proposal – the CPRS and its current incarnation, nearly every element of the GFC stimulus, the MRRT, the QLD disaster levy, NBN, reform of the super tax set-up, asylum-seeker policies, NDIS and now Gonski. None of this has much to do with the merits of the projects. It is simply calculated rejection for ideological/political purposes. It seems to be working.
So the lesson is really obvious. Employ resistance to change in all cases. Never co-operate. Oppose everything proposed by your political enemies. Whip up fear and mistrust, no matter how preposterous this might be. Deride anything that is aimed at making things better as being impossible or fanciful or a lie.
Politics has now become the creation of dysfunction and the purpose of power is to achieve stagnation in all things.
Complete F-wittery has triumphed.
Priceless and sadly so true. We can now expect generations of reprobate number crunchers destroying the nation with idiotic resistance to everything/nothing. Joy.
HnH, thanks for the topic. It is a pity the idea of opportunity cost is so seldom applied to politics. It often seems to me that most of the chances we’ve had since the mid-90′s have just been wasted. Where is the brilliant, highly evolved, richly connected, adaptable and dynamic economy that we should have? Where is world-class education system? How come we think so little of ourselves and our prospects that we can fall for such an obvious charade as the LOTO?
Lol. Briefly, economies such as you describe above are rare beasts – just take a look at global economies c2013 – a struggle to find any that fit the description.
Where is the brilliant, highly evolved, richly connected, adaptable and dynamic economy that we should have? Where is world-class education system?
The driver for it was voted out in 1996.
How come we think so little of ourselves and our prospects that we can fall for such an obvious charade as the LOTO?
Umm, I can’t honestly see what you say you observe.
We have a low opinion of ourselves? Do you mean the MB viewers, or wider Australia.
If you assert wider Australia, I would say we have too high opinion of ourselves, smugly caught up in our house flipping, price gouging, FIFO’ing mediocrity, and that this beast which is cannibalising itself, will leave ruin for future generations.
We will fall, because stupid is as stupid does.
Dudes, you’re too hung up on what is essentially political parties establishing points of differentiation. No big deal. They all do it. Lib oppose MRRT, carbon tax and NBN. Labor warns of Lib “austerity”, “Workchoices” bogeymen.
There seems to be growing alignment on the issue of asylum seekers, Labor gradually conceding to the Libs. General agreement about the ‘worthiness’ of NDIS and Gonski, some disagreement in regard to funding. Both openly loathe the Greens, one for as long establishing another point of differentiation is expedient.
Next you two will want Abbott and Gillard to embrace, announce the Liberal/Labor coalition – now there’s an idea – squeeze out the Nationals, neuter the Greens and demolish the Independents!
I reckon that they may as well there is bugger all choice anyway !
Might as well, both current leaders care more about political survival than any ideal or policy they were ever supposed to stand for. The decision now is whose career I should further.
The real problem with the carbon tax is not that its bad policy, its that its an irresistible political target. Any politician of any flavour who proposes making electricity more expensive has effectively painted a great big target on their head, that will always prove irresistible to their political opponents. Ask Malcolm, Kevin or Julia. They’ve all been victims of their carbon-pricing policies in one way or another.
Abbott might be a complete boof-head, but he knows an electoral gift when he sees one. Honestly, I can’t ever see a government-mandated price on carbon surviving more than one electoral term in this country. Its electoral poison, regardless of the facts of the matter.
Australians were all for this climate change caper when it meant big juicy rebates on solar hot water and grid-connect PV, and they loved the idea of being paid for surplus electricity. Things turned sour when government said the solution was to pay more for electricity. I’m pretty sure juicy rebates on hybird cars and EVs (like they have in most countries) would be pretty popular as well.
You don’t have to tell me such policies are a vastly more expensive way to reduce carbon emissions than carbon pricing, but (sadly) they are the only politically saleable policies, so its that or nothing.
Lorax,
I think that regardless of the efficacy of the Carbon Tax as policy and leaving out all the AGW arguments, this tax was imposed on Australia through a concerted planned deception. That is the real problem ; the way it was all handled.
If the Carbon Tax was put forward openly and honestly with its costs, intent and workings fully laid out during the election campaign, those that share my view would have to suck it up if it was democratically accepted by the electorate. As you know it wasn’t. And since then much much more has transpired. Gillard and Labor can blame themselves and nobody else.
I would love to see an MB poll indicating how many on this board are Govt (any level) and or IT related in profession , then the Rest.
It would explain a lot I suspect.
I work in the private sector in a finance related field.
I used to work in I.T.
I operate an export-oriented manufacturing business in Western Australia and own a subsidiary in Hong Kong. We produce and market high-value, world-class products for use in elite segments of the hospitality and gift-giving markets in South China. I am no bureaucrat, GSM. I will not make any guesses about your claims to fame.
I have no claims to fame briefly. I work in the private sector – resources , in the mines of WA.
I work in the public relations division of a large union with strong links to the ALP, working on different projects to entrench Union power, propagate miscellaneous left-wing causes, and to undermine Conservative policy. Prior to that I was a consultant to the ABC for two years on nature/environmental programming. Prior to that I worked for 15 years in various Govt departments, in various policy positions. Ran various projects to increase amount of red-tape for small businesses, and increase cost of business for resource companies.
And what of it ?
And I had you pegged as a Uni wonk, lecturing in economics/urban planning. Go figure….
Should have mentioned – prior to that I spent eight years at University swapping between economics, urban planning and humanities courses, none of which I actually finished. Pre-HECS, so fully funded by taxpayers. After graduating I spent three years in Lennox Heads on the dole, splitting my time between surfing, amateur horticulture, and as an work experience organiser for the local branch of the AWU.
My contribution to society has been second to none. I would pit it against your patently non-productive resource sector work any day of the week.
We get it spleen, don’t worry. It’s ok to be scared to come out in the open.
It would also be pointless, because you’re too paranoid to believe the results.
Thanks doc. Is it IT or PS then?
As I’ve stated several times before, I work in IT.
Private sector, telecommunications, infrastructure and services.
Formally, cobol programmer, mainframe technician, network design, capacity manager, application development, international marketing, CIO, consulting….even mining systems…
Cobol programmer? Interesting.
IT supporting finance. Originally video game development, then market data and trading systems, now supporting a risk management team selling complex financial products.
Not sure my experiences gives me a particularly rosy-glassed view of those industries though
“Not sure my experiences gives me a particularly rosy-glassed view of those industries though
”
Absolutely! I’m also in IT and I design the infrastructure to support complex financial systems. I sure as hell wouldn’t invest with my employer (one of the biggest and not a bank).
Rudd on Sky News Agenda last week tore in to Abbott in an extremely incisive way.
I think people underestimate his campaigning skills and how much he will go for Abbott’s jugular on policy weakness every day.
Contrast him with Gillard and Swan who have to look at briefing notes in parliament when defending government expenditure (lower than Howard’s) or GFC spending.
+ 10
I would love to see Tony Abbott on Sky News Australian Agenda for 5 mins… Not 30 mins.. Not on ABC Insiders or 7:30 with their “left” bias…
As Rudd and the hosts pointed out, Abbott is even running away from the Murdoch press/TV and sticking to simplistic dog-whistle slogans like “STOP THE BOATS” .
You mean Rudd, that gave us Pink Batts, School Halls for twice the price, changed border protection laws, fuel watch, grocery watch, cheques for the dead and many other policy sparks?
Yeah I’m sure he ‘tore Abbott a new one’ on policy. Lol.
Latest Newpoll has ALP behind by 4 points even with Rudd in charge.
Yep that Rudd. That put climate change on the agenda, apologised to the Stolen Generation, and put forward a decent (if flawed) mining tax. Most of the slip-ups you list were be departmental errors. He didn’t actually sign cheques and inspect building plans you know.
So Newspoll can factor in how voters would think if they heard him campaigning every day against Abbott and setting the agenda. Wow, that’s just astonishing….. (insert emoticon)
Rudd gained acceptance as “Howard lite” to get in. It was his key pledge to Australians to get sufficient numbers. The electorate trusted him. Again, the deception.
Rudd had some decent ideas,I agree some you identify. But he ended up not taking the Australian public or his party with him on his manic journey. The party did him in and have been a rabble ever since.
HnH I have to disagree on the carbon tax. I work as a engineer in the utility business and this thing has been a debacle for us., it has added additional amounts of cost which everyone has to pay for There was no consultation with industry before it was implemented we made a plea to reconsider; especially for the exemption of SF6 in transmission and distribution as there is no other option but they still went ahead and implemented it. There were no clear working guidelines from the government it was open to interpretations from which side of the fence you were sitting on.
This FAQ will bring you up to speed with SF6 in the T&D area.
http://www.fluorocarbons.org/uploads/Modules/Library/capie-sf6-faq-oct-2005.pdf
P.S long time lurker first time poster
“On the contrary, its two best policies are visionary in an economic and nation-building sense, these are the carbon price and the NBN.”
Firstly they haven’t said they would scrap the NBN. They have just said they would amend it to be fibre to the node rather than fibre to the home, with wireless to fill in the gaps. A much more cost effective way of building it.
The NBN is a horrible policy, it wasn’t costed, it’s over budget, way behind schedule and spends billions on technology that could easily be out of date within a few years. The Coalition are finding a way to make is less bad, which is commendable unless you are a nutter who thinks that governments wasting tones of money is good for the economy (yes I’m aware that this blog has many people who genuinely believe this).
Saying that the government should spend billions more than they have to because “it’s like not as good and stuff” is just plain ridiculous. I want a Ferrari, but guess what? I can’t afford one so the reliable Camry will have to do, it still works, still does what it needs to do, it’s just a lot cheaper. You are being critical simply for the sake of being critical.
Secondly, the carbon tax is a horrible policy on every single conceivable level. That someone who claims to be a serious economic commentor could claim it is good policy simply defies belief. Even if you accept the completely unproven hypothesis/faith of CAGW it is STILL a terrible policy.
It makes efficient energy sources more expensive for no reason, sends money back to big business whilst punishing small and medium businesses, creates a massive welfare money-go-round, a wasteful and pointless bureacracy, huge compliance costs, makes everything more expensive and gains absolutely nothing at all. It doesn’t cut emissions of CO2 (a trace gas required for life to exist), it doesn’t even raise any revenue!
Finally, calling Abbott “Dr No” betrays an undergraduate view of the world. It is the oppositions job to oppose the government when they try to push bad policy. If that government are going to push bad policy over and over again, then guess what? The opposition are going to oppose them and say “NO” a lot! That’s what oppositions are supposed to do. If the ALP had put forward serious reforms that would make us more competetive and a more efficient economy the Coalition would have supported them and would have been stupid not to. Instead, this government have shown themselves to be nothing more than unqualified, incompetent fools. Complaining about Abbott saying no is like a child complaining about their parents hiding the lollie jar.
You forgot the final, actual choice (no surprises at all), that the Coalition understand that things cost money and that CAGW is nonsense (although they won’t say it) and that governments need to be prudent and reasonable when it comes to forming policies. Some people will be blinded by ideology but at the end of the day no matter how much CO2 helps trees grow, they will never be able to grow money.
Isn’t the great conservative knock on Gillard that she lied about the carbon tax?
But now you want us to vote for Tony who’s lying to the country about believing in climate change? Oh good..
“could easily be out of date within a few years”
So… your response is to spend a bunch of money on a technology that is out of date now?
Here’s an article that thoroughly debunks every argument against a fibre NBN, apart from “Duh… Labour bad. NBN bad.” You probably won’t like it because it’s written by a bunch of lefties.
http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2013/02/21/3695094.htm
“….the Coalition understand that things cost money and that CAGW is nonsense…”
Climate change is real. You need go no further than Western Australia to see this first hand. There is absolutely irrefutable evidence from in-shore fisheries of unprecedented and irrevocable habitat destruction brought about by radical, recurring and prolonged changes in ocean temperatures. These changes are absolutely unmistakeable and can be seen in startling, real-time detail along our coast from NW Cape to Cape Leeuwin; and there are corresponding, related changes occurring as far away as the west coast of Tasmania, which is also supplied by south-flowing currents originating along the WA coast.
The terrestial climate of Western Australia has also quite obviously been going through a now-protracted and seemingly non-reversing series of highly destructive changes.
Anyone who doubts these things is really just willfully ignoring the evidence. I can understand why people might like to do this. But this does not make denial valid – it merely rewards the cynical in their exploitation of the proudly, mindlessly stupid.
Climate change is real. You need go no further than Western Australia to see this first hand. There is absolutely irrefutable evidence from in-shore fisheries of unprecedented and irrevocable habitat destruction brought about by radical, recurring and prolonged changes in ocean temperatures. These changes are absolutely unmistakeable and can be seen in startling, real-time detail along our coast from NW Cape to Cape Leeuwin; and there are corresponding, related changes occurring as far away as the west coast of Tasmania, which is also supplied by south-flowing currents originating along the WA coast.
The terrestial climate of Western Australia has also quite obviously been going through a now-protracted and seemingly non-reversing series of highly destructive changes.
All of that does not validate the proposed theory of CAGW.
“All of that does not validate the proposed theory of CAGW.”
This assertion is mistaken. Everything we can see occurring along the WA coast is consistent with, explicable in terms of and predictable by reference to climate change science.
The temperature changes we are seeing have never occurred before within anything remotely resembling a geologically or biologically relevant time frame – that is, they are unprecedented over many tens of thousands of years. Yet they have begun to occur each summer. They are sufficiently intense and prolonged to kill every living thing for hundreds of kilometres and to turn tens of thousands of square kilometres of the Indian Ocean into a dead zone – a zone where marine organisms die and atrophy in one vast stink pond.
Many species have been completely and irrevocably obliterated in their traditional inshore habitats as a result of summertime heatwaves. Another heatwave is developing this summer – temperatures off Kalbarri are already around their all-time highs, and the hot season is not yet completed.
The high temps are completely novel and are wholly inconsistent with the life-forms that have existed here for hundreds of thousands of years.
You can watch radical and destructive climate change on satellite if you like.
This assertion is mistaken. Everything we can see occurring along the WA coast is consistent with, explicable in terms of and predictable by reference to climate change science.
Absolutely wrong.
An overwhelming majority of predictions made by AGW models have been woefully incorrect, indicating with 1st iteration dialectic thinking…
AGW scientist actually do not know how the climate works.
When exmained up against Svensmarks theories, the high correlation and the Nickelodean and unscientific methods attempted to use to discredit them, something is amiss.
All you indicate here is much of the AGW lobby’s attempts to include every harsh event as an outcome of AGW.
If everything concludes proof of AGW, then it is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.
The temperature changes we are seeing have never occurred before within anything remotely resembling a geologically or biologically relevant time frame – that is, they are unprecedented over many tens of thousands of years.
False.
Both absolutes and margibnal rates of change can be concluded from varying data.
Yet they have begun to occur each summer.
As when all high temperatures occur.
They are sufficiently intense {remove emotion ladden tosh}
vast stink pond.
A claim made without sicentific merit.
Many species have been completely and irrevocably obliterated in their traditional inshore habitats as a result of summertime heatwaves.
And the fossil record shows, a vast majority of species that ever existed died out.
Another heatwave is developing this summer – temperatures off Kalbarri are already around their all-time highs, and the hot season is not yet completed.
Global temperatures however do not show any significant rising in temperatures for over 10 years.
The high temps are completely novel
No they are not. You’re now extrapolating regional temperatures to global, and regionally, temperatures today are comprable with a little voer 100 years ago and the nationwide era of the federation drought.
It can be theorised for example that we are experiencing the norm, and that the era from 1940-1970 was unusually wet.
and are wholly inconsistent with the life-forms that have existed here for hundreds of thousands of years.
Rubbish, there is no consistency with the climate. Anotehr unscientific claim.
You can watch radical and destructive climate change on satellite if you like.
Yep.
Rusty Penny,
You are not admitting the actual measurable, verifiable facts of the situation of the inshore reef systems on the WA coast.
When you say the temperatures have not changed, you are wrong. They have changed radically.
The really simple thing is as follows:
Most of the species that live/lived on the inshore reefs along the WA coast cannot tolerate temperatures above 26 deg. c. The historical summertime maxima have been around 24 deg. c and reef-life has gone along as usual. There is long and very reliable data series to support these observations. High temperatures are invariably the cause of population destruction on a massive scale.
In 2011 the temperatures rose by around 4 degrees above their historical maxima – up to around 30 deg. c in some places. These temperatures were enough to kill off most reef life in many places north of Jurien Bay. Temperatures reached 26 deg. c last year and are back up to 28 deg. c and are still rising this year. This has never occurred before within a biologically meaningful time frame
We know this from the prior existence of reef-species. There are some species – abalone for example – that, once removed from a reef, will not repopulate the same reef, even if the food supply and other features of the habitat are unchanged.
This is because juveniles rely on the presence of adults on a reef in order to successfully settle and establish themselves. The grazing habits of an adult population effectively “prepare” the reef surfaces for settlement of juveniles. If there are no adults, juveniles cannot and do not settle a “virgin” reef. Population spread therefore occurs only very very slowly – only as fast as adults spread.
Because of the topography and spatial distribution of suitable reefs, this means that if you have a population, it has been there for a very, very long time – literally for many thousands of years. Likewise, if in nature (before the effects of fishing, for example) you have a reef that has no abalone population, it has probably never had one.
So, looking back over time, you can say that if a reef system supports an abalone population, there have essentially never been any environmental events – say, outbreaks of disease or influx of hot water – that were severe enough to harm the population.
Were this not the case – that is, if there had been extreme environmental events – then the abalone populations would have perished and reefs would not have been observed to be supporting these populations.
The existence of these populations in nature is evidence in itself of the absence of extreme environmental events.
This is true of abalone. It is also true to varying degrees in the case of algae species and the micro-organisms that depend on them.
Once again, if you have them, they’ve been there for a long time, which means there have been no catastrophic events in the biological past.
We are now seeing biological catastrophe recur every summer. This is completely new.
It is of a piece with all the other observations of the climate, the atmosphere and the ocean system along our coast.
You can deny it. But denial doesn’t change the facts. They are completely verifiable and demonstrable. It follows that denial is effectively only self-delusion and is a retreat from the use of reason; a folly.
“…the Coalition understand that things cost money and that CAGW is nonsense (although they won’t say it)”
So why do they not have the courage to admit it? Don’t tell me they’re lying to the Australian public?
Mav
You seem to be hung up on Judeo- Christianism. Not sure why- is it to do with your heritage?
Anyway’s I will give this issue a whirl;
” I mean those who do not let their Judeo-Christian beliefs to interfere with acceptance of proven science”
Speaking for myself as a Christian, I view the teachings and morals of Christianity as something of a guideline I like to follow because I believe they are good – I doubt fail in some measure. I don’t view Christianity as chapters of written words akin to an instruction manual dictating how I should act, think , behave and live my daily life. You will not see me defending the church or the clergy. So I have no problem whatsoever accepting proven science.
The key word in your comment is “proven”. It’s erroneous to attribute to religion what is simply a belief that the case yet to be scientifically made.
Wow..seriously GSM.. Is evolution not proven science?? I may even agree with you that climate change modelling isn’t exactly proven science (Although some emperical evidences are beginning to emerge that support the model)… But evolution??
Mav, I don’t give much thought to evolution because I just accept it. If I have given any other impression then I apologise…. but that’s not my intention.
Mav,
You didn’t answer my question ; “is it to do with your heritage”
I have honestly answered your query- so what is your belief system, if any?
I am not hung up on anything, including Judeo-Christianism. I brought that up simply because I remember you bringing it up some time ago. And since libertarian free markets visibly (no pun intended) cannot deliver us something that is faster than light, I assumed your belief that fibre optics will be redundant in 10 years flowed from the religious conservative side of things.
And your belief system?
If you are asking about my religious belief, I am not an atheist nor agnostic. So it means I believe in god, but not as some sort of super human being, but as a good person we all need to emulate.
Charlton Heston like figure?
I had to google his name. “His most memorable scenes were as Moses parting the Red Sea” .. Nope. Not him
Thanks Mav. On this we are on the same page.
Chuck Norris!
God created man in his own image. Then Chuck Norris made several major improvements and created himself.
Do not f&#k with Chuck!
Possibly the best article you’ve ever written H&H.
Total agreement on all points.
We get the government we deserve – and I dont think we deserve better than a Coalition government.
This year, we get the front row view of the freakshow that Australian politics has turned into.
My schadenfraude will be increased if this week’s CAPEX prelim numbers come in below expectation…
Don’t include me in that ‘we’, thanks.
We’re all guilty Alex, me included. I used to care, but no longer.
The only thing to do now is prepare for it and hopefully profit from whatever is coming….
Guilty of what? Labor’s internal factional nonsense and the Lib’s calculated and blunt non-policy?
I think we should distinguish btw. acceptance and responsibility here.
Have you ever participated in a preselection vote?
No. My seat has always had star candidates that I’ve voted for.
So you’ve voted, and therefore endorsed the type of candidates you get, and by default the factional nonsense that comes with it?
That would be Adam Bandt and Lindsay Tanner. I think they’ve both been strong contributors to the parliament, and far better than the average standard.
Well there you go, you voted green.
The moral relativists method of doing nothing. A cross between 21st century Amish and a child sitting in the corner witha tantrum.
Voting green is a way of expressing you are not interested in the outcomes of power. They can’t achieve power, which they are well aware of, so all they can, and will do, is snipe from a position of guilt ridden altruism.
Of course power is going to trample ahead oblivious to them.
Voting green is a way of expressing you are not interested in the outcomes of power. They can’t achieve power, which they are well aware of, so all they can, and will do, is snipe from a position of guilt ridden altruism.
Why should someone vote for a party whose policies they disagree with ?
Lindsay Tanner good in his day. Adam Bandt!!! Or any Green – terrible choice, everything Rusty so eloquently says about them is true. And then some
‘Voting green is a way of expressing you are not interested in the outcomes of power. ‘ Um, Preferences?
‘Guilt ridden altruim?’
How about just altruism? Or climate change. Or social justice. Big wishy washy words, I know. Labor are communists and have that junk covered right?
The POWER you so admire will deliver these big ticket items in to the public arena, crucial in determining our country’s future: abortion, class warfare, boat people, gay rights, aboriginal welfare via the big-stick, austerity, ‘problems’ with multiculturalism, crime, Muslims and people on welfare.
Rusty Penny, with all due respect I have no respect for you.
Voting green is a way of expressing you are not interested in the outcomes of power. ‘ Um, Preferences?
I’m well aware of how they work yes.
‘Guilt ridden altruim?’
How about just altruism?
yes, without the white or affluence guilt, then there is nothing wrong with it.
Or climate change.
I don’t subscribe to AGW.
Or social justice.
greens social justice is a furphy. Their polcies will cause more social harm than anything.
Big wishy washy words, I know.
Labor are communists and have that junk covered right?
You must be new here.
I personally subscribe to the values akin to Chifley, and admire paul Keating more then any other politician in my life time.
I view the coalition as worthless than protect the interests of rent-seekers and the squatocracy.
You’ve outed your prejudice here, as greens are want to do.
A chattering class that automate dissent to their views as reactionary.
it is the height of arrogance, which greens possess, that ones view is beyond reproach.
The POWER you so admire will deliver these big ticket items in to the public arena, crucial in determining our country’s future:
abortion,
How the hell is abortion an important issue?
class warfare,
It already exists, and the greens, whose member base have the highest rate of investment property ownership of all parties are a major proponent of it, all whilst being too dull to recognise it.
boat people,
Inconsequential noise. if treated properly like Fraser did, then the greens would be even more anonymous.
It’s now become a barking issues that afford the greens some publicity, whilst enacting improper policy responses, once again, laced with white and affluence guilt.
gay rights,
What rights gays no longer have parity with are absolutely inconsequential.
aboriginal welfare via the big-stick,
I will always endorse better treatment for aborginals. However I know of no aboriginal has ever looked at green policy and said ‘thats better’.
They understand paternalistic policies laced with white guilt are not good for anyone.
austerity,
I espouse increasing the retirement age and a job guarantee. I can’t see how i promote austerity.
‘problems’ with multiculturalism,
It is undeniable some issues arise out of multiculturalism.
crime,
crime has always existed.
Muslims
A nothing issue.
and people on welfare.
Most of whom don’t want to be on welfare, and the greens have no understanding of what causes it.
Rusty Penny, with all due respect I have no respect for you.
yeah yeah.
How the hell is abortion an important issue?
How unsurprising to see someone who treats women as contemptuously as you do doesn’t think reproductive rights are important.
The average woman, however, considers it to be a key issue. Which is why so many of them are wary (at best) of Tony Abbot.
What rights gays no longer have parity with are absolutely inconsequential.
The legal outcomes of marriage are more than “inconsequential”. Being implicitly recognised as next of kin, for example.
How unsurprising to see someone who treats women as contemptuously as you do doesn’t think reproductive rights are important.
Ahem, I don’t treat women contemptuously at all.
I have disdain for radical feminists, and you have fallen for their ploy of conflating the two.
As far as ‘reproductive rights’ go, women have an overwhelming advantage to males in terms of reproductive rights.
Then to layer the incremental benefit of abortion for women, the already advantaged gender in terms of reproductive rights, to tings like employment, education, anvironmental sustainability and economic rents to be sought from non-renewables, reform for the current status of abortion is a pretty trivial issue.
The average woman, however, considers it to be a key issue.
No, the average woman does not.
Feminists do, and again your conflating 50% of the population, with a fringe gender-hate movement.
Which is why so many of them are wary (at best) of Tony Abbot.
No, it is not his views on abortion that make women wary.
What rights gays no longer have parity with are absolutely inconsequential.
The legal outcomes of marriage are more than “inconsequential”. Being implicitly recognised as next of kin, for example.
Now again, this is an example where you’re lost in your desperation to been seen as altruistic, that you lose all sense of pragmatism.
Same sex partners can nominate each other as tax-dependents for estates.
For all intents and purposes, they do not lose any financial benefit that heterosexual couples do.
Where homosexuals do not have parity is really nothing more than a legacy of something ceremonial. it is peculiar that this ceremonial guise is sought after by groups who tend to want to completely seperate vestiges of church and state, and marriage is a vestige of the former.
The solve this, is would be best for government bodies to rename their registries the dept. of births, deaths and civil unions, with the latter being used to regulate estates.
Marriages can be exclusively the domain of the church, and be a veil that runs parallel to civil unions. The definition of marriage can also be their domain.
But to reiterate my first post, it is a poor allocation of resources to clog up mainstream thought with something that is largely ceremonial, or alternatively described, as of little consequence.
Ahem, I don’t treat women contemptuously at all.
It’s a struggle to find a post here where you refer to women as a group and don’t.
I have disdain for radical feminists, and you have fallen for their ploy of conflating the two.
Mmm. The problem is you appear to think every woman is a “radical feminist”.
Then to layer the incremental benefit of abortion for women, the already advantaged gender in terms of reproductive rights, to tings like employment, education, anvironmental sustainability and economic rents to be sought from non-renewables, reform for the current status of abortion is a pretty trivial issue.
I don’t think anyone is trying to “reform the current status of abortion”. They’re worried that it might get “reformed” out from under them with people like Tony Abbot running the country.
No, the average woman does not.
I cannot think of a single woman I know who is indifferent about access to abortion.
Feminists do, and again your conflating 50% of the population, with a fringe gender-hate movement.
Wow. Only misandrists think abortion is important ? That’s a rather bold claim.
It appears to be you who are conflating 50% of the population with gold diggers.
Same sex partners can nominate each other as tax-dependents for estates.
And how about if they don’t go out of their way to do that ?
How about deciding on medical treatment ?
The solve this, is would be best for government bodies to rename their registries the dept. of births, deaths and civil unions, with the latter being used to regulate estates.
Marriages can be exclusively the domain of the church, and be a veil that runs parallel to civil unions. The definition of marriage can also be their domain.
Absolutely. But that’s not how the system exists today, and the subject of the discussion is not “what it might look like if homophobic morons weren’t in charge”.
But to reiterate my first post, it is a poor allocation of resources to clog up mainstream thought with something that is largely ceremonial, or alternatively described, as of little consequence.
Marriage is a non-trivial legal contract. Right now, people are being denied the ability to enter into that contract for no reason other than their gender preference. Equality before the law is not “of little consequence”.
Ahem, I don’t treat women contemptuously at all.
It’s a struggle to find a post here where you refer to women as a group and don’t.
Well that might be biased on an economics website, and a lot of discourse on such a website would discuss fiscal issues, and less about relationships.
In economic terms, women are net drawers of the welfare system, they allocate 85% of discretionary spending, they still consume more than they produce and their is an observable bias in the family court towards women in fiscal settlements.
These are all observable, and for someone like you who obviously clings to a fem-centric imperitive, such dissent to this type of female privilege they would be framed as ‘contemptous’, instead of just.
I have disdain for radical feminists, and you have fallen for their ploy of conflating the two.
Mmm. The problem is you appear to think every woman is a “radical feminist”.
No I don’t, thus it is not a problem.
Then to layer the incremental benefit of abortion for women, the already advantaged gender in terms of reproductive rights, to tings like employment, education, anvironmental sustainability and economic rents to be sought from non-renewables, reform for the current status of abortion is a pretty trivial issue.
I don’t think anyone is trying to “reform the current status of abortion”. They’re worried that it might get “reformed” out from under them with people like Tony Abbot running the country.
Voting for a party that demonstrates it is ill-suited to any power such as the greens isn’t the way to go about it, which is wat the head of this nest posted about.
No, the average woman does not.
I cannot think of a single woman I know who is indifferent about access to abortion.
So you don’t know many married women? You don’t know many post-menopausal women? You don’t know many tertiary educated women who actually know how to manage their fertility, and don’t need government in their bedroom, or wallet for those who can’t manage their fertility?
Feminists do, and again your conflating 50% of the population, with a fringe gender-hate movement.
Wow. Only misandrists think abortion is important ? That’s a rather bold claim.
Yes, it is an imperitive issue for feminists because most radicals have stated they seek monopoly on reproductive rights.
Women already have enhanced rights on reproduction, and we have seen policy were men have diminished rights in comparison to the non-consentual obligations that can be imposed on them in regards to reproduction. Some would argue to the point on being unjust.
But yes, to reiterate, further widening this disparity of reproductive rights is a feminists goal and because of this abortion is a paramount topic for feminists.
it is quite trivial to the miner, the I.T worker, the truck dirver, the soldier, the parent…
It appears to be you who are conflating 50% of the population with gold diggers.
That’s a bizarre conclusion.
Same sex partners can nominate each other as tax-dependents for estates.
And how about if they don’t go out of their way to do that ?
Then they should take responsiblity for their affairs.
How about deciding on medical treatment ?
It’s called enduring power of attorney, another responsibility.
Seriously, this is further demonstrating why most people cease being ‘progressive’ when they mature.
if you aren’t responsible enough to sign to legal documents, you aren’t responsible enough to pair bond, regardless of gender of sexual orientation.
The solve this, is would be best for government bodies to rename their registries the dept. of births, deaths and civil unions, with the latter being used to regulate estates.
Marriages can be exclusively the domain of the church, and be a veil that runs parallel to civil unions. The definition of marriage can also be their domain.
Absolutely. But that’s not how the system exists today, and the subject of the discussion is not “what it might look like if homophobic morons weren’t in charge”.
They aren’t homophobic, and using ‘phobia’ as a default slur doesn’t help matters.
They are coming from a position of their relgious beliefs, which have a stance on the ceremony of marriage, as opposed to a formalised pair bonding which a civil union is.
But to reiterate my first post, it is a poor allocation of resources to clog up mainstream thought with something that is largely ceremonial, or alternatively described, as of little consequence.
Marriage is a non-trivial legal contract. Right now, people are being denied the ability to enter into that contract for no reason other than their gender preference.
Correct, if marriage is a form of civil union with the criteria of one man and one woman, they don’t meet the criteria.
Equality before the law is not “of little consequence”.
We have inequality everywhere, and the injutice caused by this is trivial compared to other outstanding issues. I’d rather have those issues addressed first.
These are all observable, and for someone like you who obviously clings to a fem-centric imperitive, such dissent to this type of female privilege they would be framed as ‘contemptous’, instead of just.
No, champ, I call you contemptuous because that’s the way you act.
No I don’t, thus it is not a problem.
Yes, you do. Or, at least, if your measure of “radical feminist” is someone who thinks abortion access is important, you do.
So you don’t know many married women? You don’t know many post-menopausal women? You don’t know many tertiary educated women who actually know how to manage their fertility, and don’t need government in their bedroom, or wallet for those who can’t manage their fertility?
Abortion *is* part of “managing fertility”.
All the women I know personally who have had abortions were tertiary educated, married (or in de facto relationships) and not at all short of money.
There are plenty of post-menopausal women who care about abortion for the same reason there are plenty of heterosexuals who care about gay rights.
I’m a little unsure how access to abortion involves “government in the bedroom”, but I look forward to your overly vague insinuations of feminist conspiracy to make the connection.
Yes, it is an imperitive issue for feminists because most radicals have stated they seek monopoly on reproductive rights.
Even if a “monopoly on reproductive rights” for women was possible, the relevance of such “radical” viewpoints bears about as much relevance to the discussion as how fundamentalist muslims feel about women.
That’s a bizarre conclusion.
Compared to thinking the only women who care about abortion are young, poor, uneducated and single, it makes concluding 1+1=2 look radical.
Then they should take responsiblity for their affairs.
Why should they need to do more – and still not have the same outcome – simply because of their sexual orientation ?
They aren’t homophobic, and using ‘phobia’ as a default slur doesn’t help matters.
They are coming from a position of their relgious beliefs, which have a stance on the ceremony of marriage, as opposed to a formalised pair bonding which a civil union is.
They are homophobic. It’s not used as a slur, I use it as a description. It’s received as a slur because being homophobic is wrong.
Correct, if marriage is a form of civil union with the criteria of one man and one woman, they don’t meet the criteria.
And that is wrong. Just like if people of different races weren’t allowed to marry, or people of different religions were not allowed to marry.
These are all observable, and for someone like you who obviously clings to a fem-centric imperitive, such dissent to this type of female privilege they would be framed as ‘contemptous’, instead of just.
No, champ, I call you contemptuous because that’s the way you act.
You’ve never observed how I act towards the overwhelming majority of women.
What you have observed is me berate feminists and the impact of feminism has had towards inter-gender relations, and it has triggered your automated dog-whistle response that you’ve developed to maintain your progressive credentials.
No I don’t, thus it is not a problem.
Yes, you do. Or, at least, if your measure of “radical feminist” is someone who thinks abortion access is important, you do.
Logical fallacy.
I said areas of access to abortion are one of the issues radical feminists champion, not the sole cause.
Such a conclusion can not be made in isolation.
So you don’t know many married women? You don’t know many post-menopausal women? You don’t know many tertiary educated women who actually know how to manage their fertility, and don’t need government in their bedroom, or wallet for those who can’t manage their fertility?
Abortion *is* part of “managing fertility”.
No it isn’t, it is obscene to say as such.
It is a method of dealing with the consequences of not dealing with fertility.
100% of pregnancies are avoidable.
All the women I know personally who have had abortions were tertiary educated, married (or in de facto relationships) and not at all short of money.
And oblivous to how pregnancy occurs then?
There are plenty of post-menopausal women who care about abortion for the same reason there are plenty of heterosexuals who care about gay rights.
And there are a vast number more having greater concern about jobs, the economy, access to housing, all of which take precedence over as something that has as little impact as abortion.
I’m a little unsure how access to abortion involves “government in the bedroom”,
When you have no problem with people having all rights and no responsibilities, i can see how you would come to that conclusion.
However, a major element of this access to abortion is the provision of medical personal, and government funding for it.
That is government being held responsible for the adverse outcomes of private activity.
but I look forward to your overly vague insinuations of feminist conspiracy to make the connection.
I look forward to you not lacing statement with snark.
Yes, it is an imperitive issue for feminists because most radicals have stated they seek monopoly on reproductive rights.
Even if a “monopoly on reproductive rights” for women was possible, the relevance of such “radical” viewpoints bears about as much relevance to the discussion as how fundamentalist muslims feel about women.
It bears great relevance. its importance to how society as a whole operates is overstated because its a prime political issue with feminists.
Its of no importance to truck dirvers, miners, farmers, etc
That’s a bizarre conclusion.
Compared to thinking the only women who care about abortion are young, poor, uneducated and single, it makes concluding 1+1=2 look radical.
Again, I didn’t say other people than what you’ve described are totally indifferent, you keep drawing this obtuse conclusions.
I’m saying an issue like abortion is not paramount to a great deal of people.
Then they should take responsiblity for their affairs.
Why should they need to do more – and still not have the same outcome – simply because of their sexual orientation ?
For the same reason people who re-marry have to change their nominated beneficiaries. Ambiguity exists.
So to overcome this, treat them like they’re adults, they can accomplish things, particuarly a single document. Stop being a totalitarian and treating every class of people in a paternalistic fashion.
They aren’t homophobic, and using ‘phobia’ as a default slur doesn’t help matters.
They are coming from a position of their relgious beliefs, which have a stance on the ceremony of marriage, as opposed to a formalised pair bonding which a civil union is.
They are homophobic. It’s not used as a slur, I use it as a description. It’s received as a slur because being homophobic is wrong.
No, they aren’t homophobic.
Their dissent does not come from a position of phobia.
It comes from a value system.
Correct, if marriage is a form of civil union with the criteria of one man and one woman, they don’t meet the criteria.
And that is wrong. Just like if people of different races weren’t allowed to marry, or people of different religions were not allowed to marry.
Not it’s not. if that was the law, but alternatives were sought, they can all be civil unions of some sort.
A marriage is a civil union, but under the law, its differentiation from other civil unions is that it contains one man and one woman.
We have all forms of segmentation under the law.
People who have salutations of ‘doctor’ or ‘justice’ have to meet criteria that differentiates them.
Just as a marriage does, it meets certain criteria.
You’ve never observed how I act towards the overwhelming majority of women.
I have, however, observed how you talk about them on this forum. Contempt is about the politest word for it.
What you have observed is me berate feminists and the impact of feminism has had towards inter-gender relations, and it has triggered your automated dog-whistle response that you’ve developed to maintain your progressive credentials.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how a woman qualifies as a “feminist” in your judgement ?
I said areas of access to abortion are one of the issues radical feminists champion, not the sole cause.
So you agree that abortion is an important issue to women who aren’t “radical feminists” ?
No it isn’t, it is obscene to say as such.
Abortion is absolutely a key factor of fertility management.
It is a method of dealing with the consequences of not dealing with fertility. 100% of pregnancies are avoidable.
Indeed. However, only having sex for the purposes of reproduction generally doesn’t lead to particularly happy relationships, or lives.
And oblivous to how pregnancy occurs then?
Quite aware. Hence the reason they were all using contraception.
And there are a vast number more having greater concern about jobs, the economy, access to housing, all of which take precedence over as something that has as little impact as abortion.
Right. How could supporting tens of thousands of additional, unwanted children possibly have any relationship to those things.
When you have no problem with people having all rights and no responsibilities, i can see how you would come to that conclusion.
That would be a straw man.
However, a major element of this access to abortion is the provision of medical personal, and government funding for it.
That is government being held responsible for the adverse outcomes of private activity.
Wow. Even GSM would struggle to come up with reasoning that absurdly convoluted.
It’d make a hilariously ironic campaign slogan though: “Keep the Government out of your bedroom, ban abortion !”
It bears great relevance. its importance to how society as a whole operates is overstated because its a prime political issue with feminists.
So we’ve moved down to it being mere “feminists” who seek a “monopoly on reproductive rights” ?
Its of no importance to truck dirvers, miners, farmers, etc
I suspect there’s more than a few truck drivers, miners and farmers who have been grateful for access to abortion, over the years. Just a hunch.
I’m saying an issue like abortion is not paramount to a great deal of people.
And you are comically disconnected from reality for thinking that.
So to overcome this, treat them like they’re adults, they can accomplish things, particuarly a single document. Stop being a totalitarian and treating every class of people in a paternalistic fashion.
Wow. You’ve somehow gotten from “treat people equally before the law” to “treating every class of people in a paternalistic fashion”.
Non-sequitur much ?
It comes from a value system.
A value system that treats people differently for no reason other than their sexual preference is homophobic. Just like a value system that treats people differently for no reason other than their race is racist.
Not it’s not. if that was the law, but alternatives were sought, they can all be civil unions of some sort.
But they’re not, and this discussion isn’t about what might happen, but what is law today.
A marriage is a civil union, but under the law, its differentiation from other civil unions is that it contains one man and one woman.
And that is wrong.
People who have salutations of ‘doctor’ or ‘justice’ have to meet criteria that differentiates them.
Just as a marriage does, it meets certain criteria.
You’re seriously trying to argue the legal ramifications of claiming to have certain professional qualifications is the same thing as being attracted to someone of the same gender ? Can you explain to us why you think these things are somehow comparable ? Would you be in favour of discrimination against mixed-race marriages, if that were the law today ?
It’s certainly not hard to see why you’re voting for the Liberals. Your social views make Tony & Co. look like wild, idealistic hippies.
You’ve never observed how I act towards the overwhelming majority of women.
I have, however, observed how you talk about them on this forum. Contempt is about the politest word for it.
No you haven’t observed how I talk about women, other than endocrinological differences in the brain.
I have talked contemptuously about feminists.
I adore women, holding well adjusted women in contempt is the furthest position I could have for them
What you have observed is me berate feminists and the impact of feminism has had towards inter-gender relations, and it has triggered your automated dog-whistle response that you’ve developed to maintain your progressive credentials.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how a woman qualifies as a “feminist” in your judgement ?
A feminists is someone who subscribes to a gender hate movement and peddles lies to further even greater privilege for women and affects the quality of life for men in a negative fashion, typically spreading lies.
Lies such as ‘gender pay gap’, the continued expression of a patriarchy in the western world, the demonisation of masculinity.
The corruption of institutes such as the family court and secondary education that sees structural impediments to males and boys.
Obscene gestures such as post-divorce payments such as ‘accustomed to a standard of living’
I said areas of access to abortion are one of the issues radical feminists champion, not the sole cause.
So you agree that abortion is an important issue to women who aren’t “radical feminists” ?
An issue that may exist, but not one of great importance to most women no.
No it isn’t, it is obscene to say as such.
Abortion is absolutely a key factor of fertility management.
??
Fertility is about managing a menstrual cycle to manage pregnancy. Abortion is made after the fact, it is employed after fertility hasn’t been managed.
It is a method of dealing with the consequences of not dealing with fertility. 100% of pregnancies are avoidable.
Indeed. However, only having sex for the purposes of reproduction generally doesn’t lead to particularly happy relationships, or lives.
And there are roughly all but 2 days of a menstrual cycle where that can be fulfilled. The other 2 days, alternatives can be selected.
And oblivous to how pregnancy occurs then?
Quite aware.
Hence the reason they were all using contraception.
Endocrinological aids to managing fertility aren’t fail proof.
Anyone who manages their fertility responsibly knows this.
And there are a vast number more having greater concern about jobs, the economy, access to housing, all of which take precedence over as something that has as little impact as abortion.
Right. How could supporting tens of thousands of additional, unwanted children possibly have any relationship to those things.
Those children who have not been born as a result may care. So perhaps may many religious people sympathise with them, much like your heterosexuals who sympathise with gay rights.
When you have no problem with people having all rights and no responsibilities, i can see how you would come to that conclusion.
That would be a straw man.
No, it would be a judgement call.
However, a major element of this access to abortion is the provision of medical personal, and government funding for it.
That is government being held responsible for the adverse outcomes of private activity.
Wow. Even GSM would struggle to come up with reasoning that absurdly convoluted.
It’d make a hilariously ironic campaign slogan though: “Keep the Government out of your bedroom, ban abortion !”
No, it is bearing on you preaching rights with no responsibilties.
Bedroom activity may have adverse consequences, and many people don’t wish to see people who choose such bedroom activities minimise responsibility by shifting responsibility to the public purse and the termination of a feotus.
It bears great relevance. its importance to how society as a whole operates is overstated because its a prime political issue with feminists.
So we’ve moved down to it being mere “feminists” who seek a “monopoly on reproductive rights” ?
No, we’re still discussing the policy outcomes of feminists.
Its of no importance to truck dirvers, miners, farmers, etc
I suspect there’s more than a few truck drivers, miners and farmers who have been grateful for access to abortion, over the years.
yes, the capacity of someone who has mismanaged the fertility.
But abortion doesn’t equate to the logistical of mechanical capabilities of a truck, or the ore quality of a mine, or the soil quality of a farm, or the capital requirements of conducting these activities.
The act of legalising abortion has made very little material gain for any country that has introduced it.
it is a trivial matter.
Just a hunch.
I’m saying an issue like abortion is not paramount to a great deal of people.
And you are comically disconnected from reality for thinking that.
Reality to me is to compare countries where abortion is legal,to where is isn’t. There is no correlation of an enhanced society due to its implementation.
So to overcome this, treat them like they’re adults, they can accomplish things, particuarly a single document. Stop being a totalitarian and treating every class of people in a paternalistic fashion.
Wow. You’ve somehow gotten from “treat people equally before the law” to “treating every class of people in a paternalistic fashion”.
Equality doesn’t and can’t exist, what we should ask for is equitable treatment.
For example men are treated with greater harshness in our legal system.
Unlike the gender pay gap myth, this is real. A man is more likely to receive a custodial sentence than a woman for the same crime.
If a custodial sentence is awarded, a man is more likely to receive a longer custodial sentence for the same crime as a woman.
Non-sequitur much ?
Not at all.
Ambiguity exists within a gay relationship, as it does with remarriage.
it is easy to see why such assumptions exist with (1st) marriage, it is seen as a unit of pair bonding and procreation. Any issue of estate planning would be assumed to facilitate the remaining family.
Family as such wouldn’t be as much of a consideration with homosexuals, and ambiguity as the the intent of the relationship beyond lovers is contentious, making it an incentive for the legal profession.
Thus, like 2nd marriages, the ambiguity can easily be cleared up wirh declarations such as nominated beneficiaries and enduring powers of attorney.
It makes more sense to strip away these embedded rights from married heterosexuals than to award them to homosexuals, as to avoid moral hazard.
It comes from a value system.
A value system that treats people differently for no reason other than their sexual preference is homophobic.
No it’s not. That is your misapplication of what defines a ‘phobia’
Religious people have a value system that views them differently, not out of fear, but out of a moral ground of the purpose and treatment of pair bonding and procreation.
Just like a value system that treats people differently for no reason other than their race is racist.
Racism isn’t a phobia.
Not it’s not. if that was the law, but alternatives were sought, they can all be civil unions of some sort.
But they’re not, and this discussion isn’t about what might happen, but what is law today.
The discussion also involves alternatives to reform it to, otherwise there’d be no resistance.
A marriage is a civil union, but under the law, its differentiation from other civil unions is that it contains one man and one woman.
And that is wrong.
Not to the people who oppose it.
Just because you display intolerance to peoples value system does not make it wrong.
People who have salutations of ‘doctor’ or ‘justice’ have to meet criteria that differentiates them.Just as a marriage does, it meets certain criteria.
You’re seriously trying to argue the legal ramifications of claiming to have certain professional qualifications is the same thing as being attracted to someone of the same gender ?
No, I’m saying certain criteria has to be attained to meet such certain outcomes.
A marriage is a civil union involving one man, and one woman.
If it is another other pairing, it is a civil union that is not a marriage.
Can you explain to us why you think these things are somehow comparable ?
Because they are labels that are only fulfilled with certain criteria.
Would you be in favour of discrimination against mixed-race marriages, if that were the law today ?
My wife is of a different race to me, no I would not agree to it.
It’s certainly not hard to see why you’re voting for the Liberals. Your social views make Tony & Co. look like wild, idealistic hippies.
My social. I don’t supplicate feminists is all.
I personally don’t have any issue with gay marriage, I was a member of FLAG at uni, and I have gay siblings. But I don’t particularly find it more than a trivial issue.
My stance on gay marriage has been more to do with displaying your intolerance to views other than your own.
My desire to see the LNP elected it because I hope see a rebuilding of the ALP and a violent crash of the Australian economy to reset it, and I think Abbott is well suited to achieving those outcomes.
No you haven’t observed how I talk about women, other than endocrinological differences in the brain.
You appear to attribute just about everything women do to “endocrinological differences in the brain”, so it’s hard to see how there’s a distinction.
For example, that ridiculous “women control 85% of spending” claim, which – so far as I can find – has no actual basis in fact.
I adore women, holding well adjusted women in contempt is the furthest position I could have for them
Ah, yes, the “I’m not racist, I know lots of black people” defense.
A feminists is someone who subscribes to a gender hate movement and peddles lies to further even greater privilege for women and affects the quality of life for men in a negative fashion, typically spreading lies.
And it is your contention these are the only type of women who consider abortion important ?
Fertility is about managing a menstrual cycle to manage pregnancy. Abortion is made after the fact, it is employed after fertility hasn’t been managed.
So “fertility management” in your estimation doesn’t include the actual “reproduction” part ? Because I suspect that’s not a definition most people would agree with.
And there are roughly all but 2 days of a menstrual cycle where that can be fulfilled. The other 2 days, alternatives can be selected.
Sorry, there’s still a >0% chance of conception outside those two days. It’s called Vatican Roulette for a reason.
Endocrinological aids to managing fertility aren’t fail proof.
Anyone who manages their fertility responsibly knows this.
I presume that’s as close as we’ll get to an admission unintentional conception is possible (albeit always the woman’s fault).
Those children who have not been born as a result may care.
How ? They never existed. I might as well argue the rock I threw off a cliff last week “cared”.
No, it would be a judgement call.
No, it would be a straw man.
At no point have I made even the vaguest suggestion I think people should have “all rights and no responsibilities”.
No, it is bearing on you preaching rights with no responsibilties.
There’s that straw man again.
Bedroom activity may have adverse consequences, and many people don’t wish to see people who choose such bedroom activities minimise responsibility by shifting responsibility to the public purse and the termination of a feotus.
Indeed. Generally the same kind of people who would be happy to turf the mother and child out on the street minutes after the birth if they couldn’t pay their medical bills.
Religious fundies’ belief in the sanctity of life would carry a lot more credibility if it lasted for more than the period between conception and birth.
yes, the capacity of someone who has mismanaged the fertility.
Or been pressured into sex. Or been raped. Or is bearing a child with crippling disability, illness, or genetic defect.
Reality to me is to compare countries where abortion is legal,to where is isn’t. There is no correlation of an enhanced society due to its implementation.
Irrelevant.
Equality doesn’t and can’t exist, what we should ask for is equitable treatment.
Er, yes, like I just said: equality before the law.
For example men are treated with greater harshness in our legal system. Unlike the gender pay gap myth, this is real. A man is more likely to receive a custodial sentence than a woman for the same crime. If a custodial sentence is awarded, a man is more likely to receive a longer custodial sentence for the same crime as a woman.
Please quote some legislation that requires men to be treated more harshly than women for the same crime.
it is easy to see why such assumptions exist with (1st) marriage, it is seen as a unit of pair bonding and procreation.
I take it you would be in favour of treating childless heterosexual marriages differently, then ?
Family as such wouldn’t be as much of a consideration with homosexuals, and ambiguity as the the intent of the relationship beyond lovers is contentious, making it an incentive for the legal profession.
Because it’s not like homosexuals can have families, right ?
Thus, like 2nd marriages, the ambiguity can easily be cleared up wirh declarations such as nominated beneficiaries and enduring powers of attorney.
There is no rational or objective basis for your equating of gay marriage to “2nd marriages”. Nor, indeed, for “2nd marriages” to be treated any differently to “1st marriages”.
No it’s not. That is your misapplication of what defines a ‘phobia’
A phobia is an irrational fear of something, greatly disproportionate to the actual (if any) threat it represents.
Religious people have a value system that views them differently, not out of fear, but out of a moral ground of the purpose and treatment of pair bonding and procreation.
No, because it is homophobic.
There is no moral basis in treating one “pair bond” differently to another because of the genders of the participants. Two homosexuals joining in a “pair bond” in no way prevent two heterosexuals joining in a “pair bond”. Nor do they prevent said heterosexuals from “procreating”. Nor do they cause any harm to others, either directly or indirectly.
Racism isn’t a phobia.
There are rational reasons to fear people solely due to their race ?
Not to the people who oppose it.
Just because you display intolerance to peoples value system does not make it wrong.
Indeed.
It is the fact it deprives people of equal treatment before the law for no justifiable reason that makes it wrong.
No, I’m saying certain criteria has to be attained to meet such certain outcomes. A marriage is a civil union involving one man, and one woman. If it is another other pairing, it is a civil union that is not a marriage.
“Separate but equal’, you mean ? That’s worked pretty well in the past.
Because they are labels that are only fulfilled with certain criteria.
So you’d be happy with laws that discriminate against (or for) people based on their religion (or lack thereof), then ?
My wife is of a different race to me, no I would not agree to it.
On what basis would you disagree with such an established law ?
My stance on gay marriage has been more to do with displaying your intolerance to views other than your own.
Is there a reason I should be tolerant of views that advocate harmful and baseless discrimination based on irrational stone-age beliefs ?
Or are you one of these people who think all values are equal and we should tolerate the intolerable because it’s “tradition”, or some other vacuous justification ? I’m intolerant of slavery as well. Would you like to similarly “display my intolerance for people who advocate slavery” ?
I don’t have a problem with “view other than my own”. I have a problem with views that are irrational, immoral, ignorant and discriminatory. I particularly have a problem with people who try to articulate those views with broken reasoning, poor evidence, and lies.
You appear to attribute just about everything women do to “endocrinological differences in the brain”, so it’s hard to see how there’s a distinction.
All that explains is that I admit there are differences between men and women and I believe these differences are biological.
I’m not contemptuous of women because I don’t subscribe the aggregate of these differences to be inferior or superior but complementary.
I’m not contemptuous of women because she is weaker or slower than men, which is the assertion you’re trying to make.
For example, that ridiculous “women control 85% of spending” claim, which – so far as I can find – has no actual basis in fact.
You were given the sources, then subsequently tried to wash it away with anecdotes of men’s purchasies of cars were expensive therefore the sources were wrong.
Ah, yes, the “I’m not racist, I know lots of black people”
No, the I adore women, that’s why I am willing to marry, provide and protect them.
And it is your contention these are the only type of women who consider abortion important ?
Nope, it is my contention these type of women push a vile political agenda, and will pick low hanging fruit with wider support to be a spearhead.
Other women, less politically inclined, are happy to receive the benefit of such policies.
So “fertility management” in your estimation doesn’t include the actual “reproduction” part ?
A woman becomes infertile once she is pregnant. Conception is post-fertile
Because I suspect that’s not a definition most people would agree with.
OK
Sorry, there’s still a >0% chance of conception outside those two days. It’s called Vatican Roulette for a reason.
Yup, unintended consequences.
Much like how men are treated in regard to reproductive rights. There are always unwanted consequences to deal with in life.
I presume that’s as close as we’ll get to an admission unintentional conception is possible (albeit always the woman’s fault).
Those children who have not been born as a result may care. How ? They never existed. I might as well argue the rock I threw off a cliff last week “cared”.
well no, that’s not science, now your talking law, and if we resort to that, then it validates the current position on gay marriage.
Virtually all medical professionals will state their belief a pre-natal child is a life and has senses.
At no point have I made even the vaguest suggestion I think people should have “all rights and no responsibilities”.
OK, diminished responsibilities. The outcome of of an individuals action is partially borne by the tax payer and the unborn child.
Indeed. Generally the same kind of people who would be happy to turf the mother and child out on the street minutes after the birth if they couldn’t pay their medical bills.
Weighed up by others who were given the chance of life instead of abortion. They are grateful at the opportunity for life.
You scenario anyway is about allocation of resources, not a view on life.
Religious fundies’ belief in the sanctity of life would carry a lot more credibility if it lasted for more than the period between conception and birth.
That’s not what I’ve gathered from religious fundies. It appears to be more an equal chance to life in your example, and punishment for living a wrong life with afterwards.
I think their views are congruent with a right to life being a social construct.
Or been pressured into sex. Or been raped. Or is bearing a child with crippling disability, illness, or genetic defect.
Which is why I personally would agree to abortion and vote for a party if every other policy was equal.
But the hysteria surrounding anti-abortion forces and Tony Abbott isn’t as reasoned as this. My stance in this has been to oppose the greater of two evils, and that is radical feminism.
Irrelevant.
No its not irrelevant when discussing what party to govern Australia.
A policy change in abortion is not relevant to Australia’s fortunes. For it to receive the amount of attention it does is alarming due to attention it takes off more pressing issues, for an outcome that is inconsequential.
Er, yes, like I just said: equality before the law.
With nominated beneficiaries and enduring powers of attorney, equal outcomes are acheived.
I’ve stated men do not have equal reproductive rights to women. It’s rational that we don’t, so it’s absurd to endlessly pursue equality.
Equal outcomes are not the same as equitable outcomes.
Please quote some legislation that requires men to be treated more harshly than women for the same crime.
Please understand common law and tort law are not always prescriptive.
I take it you would be in favour of treating childless heterosexual marriages differently, then ?
Then you’d assume wrong. As I said, the assumptions to marriage are built in with procreation. if heterosexual couples aren’t exercising that option is up to them.
Because it’s not like homosexuals can have families, right ?
Not with each other they can’t
There is no rational or objective basis for your equating of gay marriage to “2nd marriages”.
Yes there is. Under law the first spouse can contest the estate awarded to the second spouse if nominations aren’t clear.
Thus a the other-gender spouse is advised by most estate planners to institute beneficiary nomination and awarding enduring power of attorney to acheive the rights they want.
Just as any gay union can do the same to acheive their desired rights.
Nor, indeed, for “2nd marriages” to be treated any differently to “1st marriages”.
I suggest you read up on estate planning.
A phobia is an irrational fear of something, greatly disproportionate to the actual (if any) threat it represents.
Correct. And in the absence of fear, it is not a phobia.
It is opposed because it it is incongruent to a prescribed value system
No, because it is homophobic.
Circular logic.
There is no moral basis in treating one “pair bond” differently to another because of the genders of the participants.
It is if that morality is prescribed.
Two homosexuals joining in a “pair bond” in no way prevent two heterosexuals joining in a “pair bond”.
Only allowing heterosexuals to marry does not prevent two homosexuals to pair bond either.
Nor do they prevent said heterosexuals from “procreating”.
No one has ever made that claim.
Nor do they cause any harm to others, either directly or indirectly.
None of which invalidates why a marriage is a specific union between a man or a woman.
There are rational reasons to fear people solely due to their race ?
None that I can think of, but they aren’t always borne out of fear.
Slavery in the Americas for example was borne from rationalising away oppressive exploitation, not fear
Indeed.It is the fact it deprives people of equal treatment before the law for no justifiable reason that makes it wrong.
Unequal doesn’t mean inequitable.
“Separate but equal’, you mean ?
Differntiated, but equitable is what I will express on a whim.
That’s worked pretty well in the past.
I can also glibly point to ‘treat everyone equally’ in the same banal fashion to try and express perverse outcomes.
So you’d be happy with laws that discriminate against (or for) people based on their religion (or lack thereof), then ?
Society is happy to discriminate against all classes of people.
People under 18 can’t vote and only men are subject to conscription are two examples examples.
You’d have to be more specific where inequity arises.
My wife is of a different race to me, no I would not agree to it.
On what basis would you disagree with such an established law ?
On the basis my wife and I meet the condition of a civil union comprising one man and one woman.
Is there a reason I should be tolerant of views that advocate harmful and baseless discrimination based on irrational stone-age beliefs ?
On the basis there is no material harm, it’s not so much as issue of discrimination but conferring status upon heterosexual marriage and you can’t qualify the views of religious people as irrational.
Or are you one of these people who think all values are equal and we should tolerate the intolerable because it’s “tradition”,
No, I’ve expressed here, probably in this thread when addressing a green voter, that I do not believe tolerance by itself to be a virtue.
I don’t regard the very, very minor hurdles to overcome for homosexuals being allowed only civil unions as opposed to marriage as intolerable.
The criteria of marriage, which differentiates it from a civil union, has a legacy in the religious domain and should remain there.
or some other vacuous justification ?
Well another reason is that with my exposure to FLAG, I got the impression is that structurally, civil unions with nominated beneficiaries and enduring power of attorney is all the rights homosexuals requires.
That the further pursuit of acquiring the label of marriage was for no other reason that to attack a religious institute and dis empower it away from the church.
All the activism i have seen in the past 20 years only confirms this view.
I find it a petty reason, while also having no problem conferring a unique status to heterosexual couples.
I’m intolerant of slavery as well.
Would you like to similarly “display my intolerance for people who advocate slavery” ?
No, it would align with my view. Loss of agency is real suffering.
Filling out a ‘nominated beneficiary’ tick box is not.
I don’t have a problem with “view other than my own”. I have a problem with views that are irrational, immoral, ignorant and discriminatory.
All of which are qualitative and subjective attributes, and will reinforce circular logic.
In other words, your adhering to a value system, and contending other value systems that oppose yours.
I particularly have a problem with people who try to articulate those views with broken reasoning, poor evidence, and lies.
yet you’re a feminist??
Stories are circulating on Twitter that trashing the NBN is a promise that Abbott made to Murdoch (who hasn’t kept up with the shifting media platforms) and Rupert is repaying him in kind with positive media coverage. The media are certainly going out of their way to avoid asking difficult questions of Abbott at the moment and trashing the govt at every opportunity. The lack of opposition scrutiny is glaring despite the dog’s breakfast that is the shadow cabinet and the incoherent thought bubbles that seem to emerge from their ranks.
This whole debate reminds me of the arguments I used to have with senior management when I was fresh out of uni in 1997.
The dinosaurs in charge couldn’t understand why we needed a website, why email would be useful, or why it would be a good idea to have more than one computer for the whole department.
Mr Holes:
Please. Can we just ban the denialists? They contribute nothing.
That is probably their point…there is nothing to contribute because nothing is proven to disprove.
Lorax, old fella, can’t quite contain those embedded authoritarian impulses, hey!!
Don’t forget the sub:
http://www.miningmonthly.com/
While we’re at it, can we ban the paid mining PR representatives as well?
That is probably their point…there is nothing to contribute because nothing is proven to disprove.
Like gravity, you mean ? Or evolution ?
Interesting to compare what other developed nations are prepared to spend for broadband: http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/france-17bn-superfast-broadband-network-108334?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=widget&utm_campaign=obclick&obref=obinsource