Humodour

I did say that might be the case. It's far too easy to look everything up and give a spurious gloss of knowledgeability. Better if for the purposes of the discussion I expose my ignorance early on, I reckon. So thanks for setting me straight. So why is it that Britain virtually never has coalition governments? Voter behaviour? Soz, was sounding a bit arrogant, hey? But while this is a dry issue, it is important to the democratic health of a country, and as such I take it reasonably seriously. As to your last question, I don't know. I've thought about it a bit, and I guess it just comes down to tradition, cultural attitude, etc, yeah. For example, Australia has a system which is far more favourable to multiple parties and coalitions than Canada or the UK, and yet we still tend to hover around a 2.5 party system (although the past 4 or so years have started to significantly shatter this paradigm). I think part of it comes down to the fact that the UK and Canada have strong regional differences (e.g. Scotland in the UK, Quebec in Canada). In Australia, culture and ideology are far more uniformly distributed. When you apply this to the way seats are won in the lower houses of these countries, it does make sense to get the type of results you do.

No, if anything, it just shows the need for preferential voting. It's a minor alteration to your current electoral system, but a huge increase in the democratic fairness of elections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Where the hell did that come from? You ARE aware that Canada, like Britain and America, and unlike the rest of the world, still uses that horrible first-past-the-post system, right? Coalition governments can form regardless of whether that system exists because all that need happen is for multiple different parties to collectively have a majority of seats and they can form a coalition. Basically: no, you're wrong. What's worse with Canadialand is that BECAUSE it has so many parties AND the first-past-the-post system, parties which are not supported by the vast majority of Canadians can win power simply by pulling more votes than any single other party (and this could happen in any first-past-the-past system). So a party could win government with 20% of the vote as long as all the other parties poll below 20%, even if the supporters of those various parties all agree with each other more than the party that one government. It's not democratic at all.

Yeah, was discussing this with a mate on a run today. Well, replacing unhealthy eyes with lab-grown ones is still a while off, so until then we can use the Australian bionic eye implant which scientists here are currently performing safety testing on in preparation for commercial launch in 1 or 2 years (i.e. use in the blind). http://www.itwire.com/science-news/biology...oser-to-reality

The Canadian election isn't even worth bothering with. Last election you guys held, the Conservatives secured only something like 35% or 40% of the vote, yet got elected. What that meant was that collectively about 60% or more of Canadians voted for the various centrist and left parties (Bloc, NDP, Greens, Liberals, etc) but due to a rather **** electoral system which is entirely NOT designed to handle a multiparty system, the party which most Canadians voters did not prefer got in. This could all be fixed by just adding preferences (you don't need to switch to proportional voting or anything, but at least make the damn elections fair). And don't even get more started on your upper house.

Plus, you would expect heavy resistance/obstacles from powerful lobbies, who have a vested interest in not finding cheap alternatives to current energy sources. I always hear this line about various technologies, but it always seems to turn out to be far more the musings of ord'n'ry citizens than actual market fact.

tl;dr Summary?

Oh, I'm sure he was a GREAT engineer! But it is my experience that engineers are excellent at doings things and rather horrible at understanding why they're doing them. My sources: half a dozen friends who have done or are doing their honours in engineering + a bit of time spent hanging around their labs and watching them while they work.

So let me get this straight, you decided it was a good idea to **** a squirrel all of a sudden, a squirrel bro.

Hahahahaha

Uhhh. I take it you've been paying no attention to modern photovoltaics, then. The fact is, from a scientific and technological perspective, we KNOW just how powerful thorium and photovoltaics can be. We do not know anything of the sort about fusion. Photovoltaics are close to parity with oil now, and exactly when they become cheaper than oil depends largely on two factors: 1) if oil becomes more expensive, or 2) if breakthroughs in materials science continue occurring at their current pace. If at least one of these things occurs (and it is in fact likely that both of them will), solar energy will be more economically viable than fossil fuels within 10 years. As for thorium - feel free to point out which facts are incorrect. It's very much part of the point. My enthusiasm for thorium is perfectly in check with its practical, proven, and projected potential. There's no point being modest about the fact that it really is a far superior alternative to uranium. And we already know that uranium is a largely superior alternative to fossil fuels. It should not be difficult to join the dots here.

That's assuming it will actually be desirable. Right now it seems unlikely you could run thorium reactors without messing with uranium. Considering the development cycles we might have access to fusion by the time thorium becomes an acceptable solution. And fusion is always 30 years into the future. That's a weird post... fusion is promising but it's nothing like thorium. It's waaaaay off in the super alpha prototype stage. a bunch of commercial thorium reactors will be coming online around the world in the next 1 to 5 years. Yes, you need to convert thorium to uranium first to use it (which is actually one of the benefits - it is the reason nuclear meltdown is impossible IIRC), but that's not terribly relevant because that has already been factored into this discussion - it's still a lot safer and cleaner in every single way even considering this aspect. 1) Thorium is far less radioactive than uranium 2) Thorium produces far less nuclear waste than uranium 3) The waste it does produce has a shorter half-life 4) Thorium reactors cannot undergo meltdown 5) It's extremely difficult to weaponise thorium Thorium is not some experimental thing. It is a proven nuclear fuel. And apparently 1 tonne of thorium produces as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium. Wow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thori..._a_nuclear_fuel

Haha, yeah, I was just talking about this the other day on Facebook. Thorium is the perfect nuclear fuel source. Ironically, the reason the world will probably eventually adopt it (and replace uranium with it) is because Australia won't sell uranium to India (don't ask). Which means India needs some other way to make up for their huge and growing energy needs. And, surprise, India holds 25% of the world's Thorium (and Australia another 25%) - so it makes sense for them to invest in the initial R&D to build thorium reactors where it would not be economically feasible for any other country to do so. But once India has got initial R&D out of the way, once they've got clean, efficient thorium reactors, well, they'd be fools not to sell that technology to the rest of the world. Thorium also produces more energy per gram than uranium from memory, and it is 5 times more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium. Perhaps the key point, though, is that, due to the science of it, thorium reactors will never undergo nuclear meltdown even if all the **** hits the fan.

The Egyptian parliamentary election will be held this September:

If, just once in a while you made the effort of taking a look at the broader world (that is, what exists outside of your ass) you'd perhaps come to the realization that things are nowhere near as beautiful as they are painted in whatever circle of dope-powered wankers you go to for your daily dose of groupthink. I'm sure you get a raging hard-on from from the supposed "popular triumphs" in Egypt and Tunisia, but we need to deal with the facts: without real political objectives, ideas or even organizational infrastructure beyond the minimum for removing the incumbent tyrant, there's very little actual chance of those people "elevating", and a very real threat of islamists taking over. Perhaps just one regime being replaced by another equally corrupt autocracy that will, if we're lucky, have the trappings of democracy - which apparently is enough for the domestic consumption of sponge brained buffoons such as yourself. Are you done patting yourself in the back for the success that was granting "freedom" to the Afghan? Good. Then you can get started on Libya. Heh. You really do believe that, don't you? If dignity factored in at all in this equation, the UN and this hodge-podge of "allies" would have done something about, oh, hey, the Palestinians decades ago. I could start counting humanitarian catastrophes past and present that go ignored, but that wouldn't accomplish anything - the leftist drone is immune to facts, and I know better than to waste my time in that fashion. The fact remains that expeditious military action is only undertaken when strategic resources are at stake, not the lives of people. Therefore, it's clearly that what triggers international action, it's that what counts for us, it's that and only that what drives this war, and the rationales given are just to make you think that "this time it's different". Oh, but wait. Too much logic there, I forgot: the leftist drone is also impervious to reason. You shouldn't use words whose meaning you don't understand, chump. I call it arbitraty application of the law because that's what it is. And such a blatant degree of arbitrariness does more harm than good to the credibility of an international legal framework. Justice is about fairness, but it's also about trust. These French-led antics show none of the former and certainly inspire the opposite of the latter. It is actually counter-productive to the rosy world you'd so desperately like to see. If you bothered reading, you'd realize that I'm not necessarily against intervention in Libya, but that would probably require more brainpower than what a dozen of you could muster on your brightest day. If I'm against anything is the hypocrisy of the reasons given and, as if that wasn't enough, the gleeful abandon with which allied command (?) oversteps their bounds -no-fly zone is now no-drive zone, which in fact means cutting a swath through Gaddafi's forces so the rebels can win the war- and manipulates facts so their acts conform to modern standards of political correctness. This is required in order to claim the moral high ground they so desperately need to keep approval rates at home from plummeting. In short -because I know you don't read well- I would prefer I wasn't lied to systematically. Hahaha, whatever. I guess you think of yourself as "third way" or some other stupid new age trend that makes you think you're cool ****. Hipsters are nothing new, champ, and the Christian elements of socialism are essential rather than a new addition. Grow up. Oh shut up you silly little fool. You can sit in your armchair all you want ranting about how sage you are and how everything is going wrong, but meanwhile actual history is unfolding before you and will inevitably do far more to show you up than my words can.

Hahaha, of course you don't. You are the perfect example of the hypocrite leftie I had in mind when I wrote "if you do it it's wrong, if we do it it's OK". The end justifies the means, whenever the end suits us. Arbitrary application of the law doesn't matter, if it's "for the greater good", as defined by the usual suspects. But trust us, this little violation is just a necessary step in our endless effort to build a world of streets paved with chocolate and happy days. Doesn't matter that our record is terrible at actually doing that; pay no mind to naysayers suggesting it's the same old interests behind it all. Clown, please step back from your bitter view of me for a moment and understand what I am saying: in my ideal world, we (as a collective world) would have the conviction do what's right not only in Libya, but wherever it's appropriate to do so, regardless of our or anybody else's strategic interests. This is not my ideal world. It gets closer and closer to it every day of my life. But right now, I must resign to reality that Egypt and Tunisia are on the road to liberty but for the citizens of Syria, Algeria, Morocco, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc that human ideal must remain out of their grasp for a while yet. But Libya... the country is at a crossroads. It could be allowed to slip back into totalitarian obscurity, or it could be allowed to permanently elevate itself. It is plain as day that without the world's help, totalitarianism will triumph. It is also plain as day that with just a modicum of support from the outside world, millions of people can be given the freedom to shape their own lives as they rightfully deserve. I am merely taking a moment to reflect upon the beauty of the fact that, for once, the world has largely moved as one to uphold the dignity of a people not just with words but with action. Even though the alternative would have been far more politically expedient for almost all parties involved. This is no Iraq, and it's no Afghanistan. It is a turning point in the history of the UN and a long-term win for human rights. Even if the UN inevitably regresses to its bickering, selfish ways, we at least now have a glimpse of how it would work in a more ideal world, and can strive towards that. You call it "arbitrary application of the law" - would you actually prefer we did nothing in Libya because we're doing nothing elsewhere in the world, just because it's more logically consistent? What a pathetically nihilistic attitude. Oh, and I'm no leftie. I'm no rightie. Your pigeon-holing is loathsomely boorish.

Said this would happen, in response to Krez earlier. Never seriously expected this so soon. All that anyone seems to want is enough military action so we can say we're being tough, irrespective of the fact it won't do the rebels any bloody good. All I'm saying is have a little faith. The critics have fallen silent, Qatar and Turkey and the UAE are still on side. Even Egypt is arming the rebels via their shared border. The no-fly zone was, and still is, a fundamentally good idea. The pro-democracy rebels were beaten back to Benghazi because they were out-gunned and out-armoured as much as it was because they were disorganised. The no-fly zone was exactly what was needed to tip the balance back in their favour. And because of our help they've retaken half of Libya so far. I do not give one **** right now about the hypocrisy of the UN, or the fact that we'll do this but probably won't give a damn about Syria or Yemen or Bahrain. It sucks, but maybe in the future we'll live in a world with more balls to do what is right because the world took a gamble with Libya and it paid off in the end. One step at a time. One dictator at a time.

So Wals, you still disagree with me?

Well spotted. It's interesting because in this regard America is really quite different to Australia (and I believe Europe). I guess having a universal healthcare system makes spreading one's healthcare over their entire lifecycle easier and cheaper, but even so it just makes sense from an economic and social perspective. End-of-life-care frustrates me greatly.

It wasn't an 8.9 quake, it was upgraded to 9.0 after further readings were examined. I am not being pedantic here - earthquake strength is measured logarithmically, so an 9.0 is something like twice as strong as an 8.9. Quite a difference!

Yes, but that's because you're a moron.

Hahahahaha. Please post more.

Yeah, OK mate, I think that's utterly cynical and a fundamental misreading of the situation.

****ing idiots.