Posts by John Angelico

Re: Cut/n/Paste was Weirdly, I get on better with OpenOffice..

But, isn't that a Paste Special option?

Re: My only question is "why?".

Why on earth are we attempting to proceed down a path of LESSER automation, and GREATER intervention?

Will the person reporting on phone control of a Porsche please tell us all if that extends to disabling the automatic transmission and reverting to phone control of a clutch pedal and manual transmission?

It's obvious that evolution is a crock - we are going backwards not forwards.

Re: Evidence?

<quote>Even if I accept that the peak oil people are utterly crazy, I find it hard to believe there's INFINITE fossil fuel.</quote>

Umm, I suggest that you Google for "renewable crude oil" and read what you find...

Furthermore, I offer this analysis:

Where, currently, do we find it more amenable to live - in warmer or colder climes around the globe? [Rhetorical question, surely?]

So should the overall temperature trend be on the rise, I put it to you that the global effect will be to expand the warmer regions towards currently colder latitudes. Equatorial latitudes might become 2-4 degrees warmer by the end of this century, but so will temperate and frigid zones IF the prognostications achieve their worst predicted outcomes.

Why should such trends represent "the sky is falling" doom & gloom panic stations?

I posit that the result should lead to a reduction in fossil fuels being used for heating, and that more temperate acreage might mean more plants absorbing CO2. Some nicely positive feedback effects, no?

Re: Turnbull may be the better politican (compared to Abbott)

Ye gods! Turnbull has dropped two catches in the slips, and managed an overthrow for more runs.

Obviously doesn't belong there. He should be either third man or twelfth man.

The big scam which is the NBN is the sheer grandiose scale of FTTH. The Coalition policy of expanding fibre through the backbone then going to the kerb, with scaled expansion would have cost approx AUD4-5Billion in 2007 dollars, when it was their election policy.

The Rudd-Conroy Axis of Stupidity decided that a logical, affordable, progressive rollout had to be trumped by big numbers - hence a figure out of the air - 42Billion, with a net cost of 26Billion (after private sector buy-in).

There was not even a back of the envelope costing or a Compaq table napkin business plan.

So Turnbull is attacking in the wrong place.

Either get him out of there, or get him better advice.

Re: @K Hey doc..

On catfood? That's probably done more than all the billions spent on "climate research" then. At least cats are companion animals that give their people the semblance of a pleasant lifestyle. :-)

We have simply GOT to build

a massive spaceship, call it the "B" Ark, and send at least a third of the population off towards Goldafrincham.

Not my experience at work...

... for two weeks the ADSL2+ "service" from Telstra has been crawling and then stopping every half hour or so at worst, every two hours at best.

We have to go and power cycle the ADSL "modem" aka NTU and <sigh> whilst hoping that it somehow forces the service back on air.

Don't talk to me about Telstra - again!

I am just amazed at the loyalty of the techs who do a marvellous job, but they bust their guts for a service that totally sux where we are.

I think you miss the parent poster's point...

...which is that whatever the terminology used, the strategy seems to be a most effective way to undermine their opponents, by undermining the institution.

I disagree with what they are doing and with MS for supporting it, because I think it is an illogical (and deceptive) case, and the use of "equal rights" terminology is a false argument.

There are already restrictions on who can marry. The current laws in all jurisdictions do not simply allow any two (heteros, although NB this is NOT stated - more below) who love each other to marry.

There are limitations based on

a) existing married status

b) close blood/family relations (the taboos - usually listed) and

c) age

for example. The definition of marriage as between "a man and a woman, entered into exclusively for life" should preclude a lot of short term relationships too, but easy divorce has undone a lot of that.

Secondly, the argument as put is that marriage should be available to "any two people who love each other" rather than being restricted to "a man and a woman", but this shifts the basis from something biological (capable of scientific testing for example) to something emotional (consequently variable and impossible to assess, realistically speaking).

And looking at the emotional turbulence regularly portrayed in public, one has to wonder whether this represents a good move for a start, before we have even considered the children (won't somebody think of the children! There I said it for you all).

Thirdly, the definition does not say anything about heterosexuals or homosexuals, it simply requires that the two parties be one each of "man" and "woman" and that the relationship be exclusive. If the parties can't meet the definition, then marriage is not for them. But this is where the "gay lobbyists" are deliberately working to undermine the definition. However, they are sawing off the branch on the wrong side and they will go down once the saw cuts through (great cartoon humour, but there are serious repercussions to what they are doing).

The moral of the story is:

Be careful what you wish for: you may very well get it.

Oi! You're off yer bike!

Check this and follow the links:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/12/30/laframboise-ipcc-audit-4-the-mcintyre-case/

And look for Donna Laframboise "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert"

Kindle Edition here: http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top&tag=wattsupwithth-20

or

Amazon UK here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318550553&sr=8-1-spell

Someone may need to explain...

"research" to the complainants.

What ever happened to supplying the factual correction in a timely manner?

And thus winning the argument when the debate is on, rather than six months later.

Maybe the complainant/s couldn't...?

OT: "investing a crime"

Wot? D'ye mean that crime could pay if they just invested, right?

You can say it...

...but you will have created a simple error of chronology, by attempting to relate two separate and unrelated things. Have you seen someone about that cognitive dissonance problem of yours?

I am a Christian and no, I do not propose "going thermonuclear" - I will simply shake my head at the lengths some people go to in trying to discredit my beliefs.

Feeling D-valued?

N/T

Sounds like...

"unififed string theory" sounds like something the Goons would approve of - a tin whistle with only one note, played as the theme music for "The Great String Robbery" episode.

Whoa there, GOF

You said:

"The govt isn't holding a gun to your head and forcing you to upgrade to a faster internet..."

Well, how do you explain the big money being paid to shut down of the copper and HFC networks?