Humodour

Tell that to India: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html In reality, thorium plants can't even go critical (though the freak-out is understandable given how fresh Chernobyl was in people's minds), and neither can most modern uranium reactors (by design). Even then Chernobyl was an exercise in poor maintenance. It also looks like THTR they were using an old design for the thorium reactor, though the cost blow-out could have been due to the fact it was essentially a pilot, or simply poor management. I'll read up on it one day.

This one can. Agreed, which is what the NBN is - fibre, wireless, satellite, and I suppose copper, with the majority obviously being fibre. It's a good idea. The NBN is a tier 1 provider, so it won't compete with or replace ISPs. Let me put it this way: this internet filter acts on the http protocol only. When was the last time you saw child porn accessed from a website? It's all done via P2P, and often by darknets, which has been repeatedly pointed out to the government. And I really hate the "for the children" defence because it's so hollow. Instead of trying (and failing) to block polite society from being aware of the problem (while ****ing up normal internet access and putting in place a censorship scheme to be abused by future governments) just so politicians can brush the problem under the carpet (while the offenders continue unhindered), we should be investing the large sum required for this madcap scheme into actual action on the issue - improved law enforcement, nailing the problem at its source (which has proven to be very effective in Australia in the past, even without extra funding). Australia does not have a 'paedofile' problem, so why this sudden wildly disproportionate move? And it's interesting that everyone from Google to child protection groups are speaking out against this filter. It's nothing but a social conservative vote grab.

It really irks me that all Australian political parties are anti-nuclear, because we own 25% of the world's uranium, and 25% of the world's thorium. We also use coal almost exclusively for energy production. Nuclear energy would make so much sense in Australia it's not funny.

Not to mention his retarded plans to scrap the NBN (National Broadband Network). The NBN is a brilliant idea which voters, industry, academia, and communications companies support (except the copper-line monopoly Telstra, which was itself a previously government entity). NBN = fibre to the home with guaranteed speeds of 100mbps for 90% of Australians and wireless/satellite for the rest (remote areas, min speed 12mbps). Then if we ever needed to upgrade in future (e.g. to gigabit) we'd just replace the switches (not the fibre, which supports up to the speed of light obviously). And it legally has has to be sold to private industry (with no single majority single stakeholders) after 10 years anyway, and is 49% private from the outset, so a maximum public cost of $22 billion over 8 years to taxpayers in the country with the lowest public debt in the Western world... ****. Abbott would like to see Australia remain in the dark ages, and Rudd would like to see Australia become some sort of Internet religious police state. Yaaaaay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network

http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/344247/sh...4304&fpid=1 Read it. Absorb the slime. Bask in the sleazy evasion. Read in awe as he answers none of the questions asked in the 3 page interview. It's ironic because he's trying to introduce Internet censorship "for the children" yet he looks like a paedophile. If I had kids I certainly wouldn't let him near them.

The day he got brought back in by Brown was the day it should have been apparent that Brown will do absolutely anything at all to stay clutching power. And I say that having voted for the S.O.B. There are two deal breakers for me voting LibDem. Firstly their position on defence can be most charitably described as 'committed pacifist' or - from my philosphical standpoint - stark raving mad. They are fixated on a nuclear disarmament schtick from 1993 that by disarming we can somehow exert moral authority to disarm people like Iran and N Korea. They have also stated that they want an immediate return of troops from Afghanistan, and regard CURRENT operations as the 'end phase'. Which is just illogical, given the way that the dynamic at the moment is very much in flux. It's pure irresponsible pandering. In both cases they might just as well put their faith in a cupful of magic beans. The second deal breaker is that they are insisting on a shift to proportional representation. There are many arguments against this, but the one most likely to sway the average person is that it takes away our ability to vote for an actual person. MPs become inescapably party machines, rather than only being party machines when they lack any moral or intellectual foundation. They argue, reasonably enough that they get a big percentage of the vote yet few MPs and say this isn't fair. I say it's not unfair. Any more than it's unfair that only one party gets to form government. Each MP is voted in in turn. If only a handful of LibDem MPs are liked by voters then buck up, don't try to fudge the rules! I have very deep misgivings with all parties, but it's a choice between a morally and intellectually bankrupt group, a morally 'sound'*, but intellectualy dwarvish group, and a bunch of morally unsound but intellectually accomplished group. *If by morally sound you mean it sounds good at dinner parties. The troop and nuke thing is fair dice. But I strongly disagree with you on the proportional representation thing. Take a look at how Australia's parliament works - lower house (which forms government) has elected MPs via preferential voting while the Senate (house of review) has proprtional representation. It works really well. Failing that, can't you at least get a working parliament like America (for all America's political system's flaws, they can at least claim to have fully democratically elected houses). You guys and Canada have such a messed up system. I also have a very different view of how prop rep works. It's not that a handful of voters like Lib Dem, they have close to the same level of support as the other to main parties - at the very least it's a large amount. The problem is the voters are spread relatively evenly around the UK. Under proportional representation those people would get their say rather than being consistently ignored. It's not 'fudging' the rules. You also say prop rep encourages parties rather than individuals. Which is ironic and confusing because it's easier for individuals and smaller parties to gain representation under prop rep. Prop rep eleminates the two party system. It disempowers party-line voting.

UK's Labour government refuses to rule out blocking Wikileaks under this act. Man I really really hate UK Labour. Actually come to think of it Australian Labour is similarly ****ed up but they face a hostile Senate so haven't been able to pass internet censorship here (and the Greens will hold control full balance of power in the Senate next election so fat chance of passing Internet censorship any time soon Rudd you bloody ****). I digress. Meanwhile most of the Tories simply abstained rather than voting against it - what a great party of action and civil liberties they are.

I think you're misinformed on the topic, Wals. Maybe we caqn get into a citation war when I get off work. :D First of all: nobody is advocating 100% wind energy or 100% solar, because it's a ****ing stupid idea. Secondly, the energy production capabilities of the two are pretty high per dollar, they're just something like 20%, maybe 100% more expensive depending on whatever technology you're looking at. It's certainly NOT energy output capacity that is the limiting factor, rather bang for buck. This will change as fossil fuels get rare and demand increases (two related but independent processes, one a product of finite supply, the other a product of demand in developing nations). Thirdly, carbon requestration technologies are not showing much promise. It's not even certain they viable for mass industrial use. Nuclear is also a poor choice to power the world. It's good for powering something like 25% of energy requirements but you'd quickly run into problems if you wanted to switch to it near exclusively, not least because it IS a finite fuel (I guess less so for Thorium, and humanity could conceivably run on it for a couple of millenia before it ran out, but people ignore Thorium at the moment because all the reactors that exist are designed for Uranium, and reactors are expensive to make). The sane thing to do is opt for the mix of fuel technologies and it greatly frustrates me that people always want to pull the debate completely in one direction ("oooooh nuclear is evil, we must have 100% renewable energy!" or "omg don't be a tree hugger, who gives a ****, 100% coal is cheaper" or "100% atomic cheaper will solve all our problems").

Indeed. Mandelson is an absolute retard.

What alternative is there though?

He thinks communism made mistakes?! No, he thinks Stalin made mistakes. Certainly not communism. Hmmmm. Yes I do think out of all of us, you do have a "special" insight to what he is thinking. Just kidding. He doesn't bother me anymore. I've moved on to hating on contemporary Russian apologists like obykven or whatever his name is.

Too bad there isn't one to switch to. You're right: instead of one, there's many. Nuclear, solar, wind, geo and you can make the rest up with traditional fossil fuels if you don't have enough renewables or thorium (Haha get the joke? Thorium is abundant as ****, and clean too.) Come on mate, don't be so daft. Well, lets see, in the US there is a moritorium on building nuclear plants and we have not built one since the 80's. Solar power makes a nice supplement but no municipality can afford to implement it on a large scale, wind farms might power a building or two but that science is a long way from being perfected. Plus almost all of out cars are still gas powered because the average working person cannot afford a hybrid (which only gets slightly better mialage for double the cost) and smart cars and electrics are impractical or cost prohibitive. The US enegery policy since Bush 41 has been a bloody disaster and with every new administration it gets worse and worse. Fair enough.

It's a talent, and one we work hard to nurture. Hopefully this will be a good test of David Cameron's commitment to personal freedom - assuming he becomes PM - and it'll be repealed or revised very soon. I think we should get onto the Tories HQ and send a rocket up 'em on this point. Although, to be brutally honest I'd rather have a commitment that he's not going to roger the BBC. I don't get it - why do you immediately look to the Tories when you are opposed to them ideologically and know they're going to screw you over on a number of things you deem important (e.g. BBC)? The Lib Dems would seem a much stronger candidate for your vote, especially given their commitment to civil liberties and the economy. They're basically a socially conscious libertarian party, which would, in my mind, mesh well with your views. They've also indicated that if it came down to it, they'd support the Tories over Labour in a hung parliament, so again, all good there. And frankly I'd think you'd WANT a hung parliament because of the increased scrutiny it provides for all policy decisions. E.g. **** like this wouldn't pass if the UK had a hung parliament because it'd require support from either the Tories or the Lib Dems as well as the government (Labour). The Lib Dems certainly don't support it and the Tories say it was rushed and poorly thought out, without most abstaining. "Of the 189 Aye votes, I make it 185 Labour and 4 Conservatives. Plus the two tellers were Labour. Of the 47 Noe votes, I make it 23 Labour rebels, 16 Lib Dems, 5 Conservatives and 3 others (DUP, PC, Ind). Plus the two tellers were Lib Dem."

Too bad there isn't one to switch to. You're right: instead of one, there's many. Nuclear, solar, wind, geo and you can make the rest up with traditional fossil fuels if you don't have enough renewables or thorium (Haha get the joke? Thorium is abundant as ****, and clean too.) Come on mate, don't be so daft.

He thinks communism made mistakes?! No, he thinks Stalin made mistakes. Certainly not communism.

Oh wow, every time I think the UK can't **** things up any further they go and surprise me.

No, I'm sick of hearing that. The developer DOES have clout with their publisher, much as they might be happy to appear as if they don't with things like this.

Feck, it's not available for PC

Well we do. There's absolutely nothing wrong with legal porn and they've done enough psychology research studies to prove it isn't harmful (indeed can be beneficial) for me to wonder why you'd even make a statement like that.

So what you're saying is, Apple should add an adult content filter, such that adult content isn't displayed by default? Honestly Orugun01, it's not hard to satisfy everyone without being inconsistent authoritarian ****.

I love this response when one of America's domestic policies is questioned. It's hilarious every time, and reminds me quite a bit of how Chinese nationalists respond when somebody criticises things like China's human right's record. You're comparing America's gun laws to China's human rights record? Really? No. Read my post properly. I'm comparing a collective inability to handle criticism from those in other nations, which is rather reminiscent of Chinese nationalism. I don't recall seeing any such threads. Could it be because those policies were correctly identified and rejected many decades ago as the disgrace they were? Or are you saying you'd like to move from present-day policy failures in America to those of the past, such as slavery and institional racism? Or perhaps you're just saying somebody from Australia shouldn't criticise America now because Australia has made mistakes in the past. I hope this isn't actually your point, because from a logical perspective it is very stupid. So are China's human rights records. And I bring that up again because it helps illustrate my point: America is a big nation, one of the world's leading nations, and it acts like it and projects itself as such. When Chinese nationalists get all antsy about people criticising China's human rights record, I point this out to them: critical scrutiny comes with such aspirations. I'm not disappointed in you, however, more amused than anything.

Predicted customer response: Well, if you say so. http://www.cnet.com.au/apple-if-you-want-p...d-339302586.htm

We get the game before everyone else? Am I reading that correctly?

I love this response when one of America's domestic policies is questioned. It's hilarious every time, and reminds me quite a bit of how Chinese nationalists respond when somebody criticises things like China's human right's record.

OMG Wolfmother! So awesome.