http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno … utostart=1Spark wrote:
Green light to clean filter. Conroy will try and ram it through.
And then we'll see how much of an expensive, useless and impotent waste of time this thing is.
That must hurt.Westpac has again defended its decision to raise mortgage interest rates by nearly double this month's official increase.
They did. Pretty much its the same old bullshit in a new wrapper. Keeps things simple.Cheez wrote:
Who in the what now?
I seriously don't follow politics, they're all the same cunts.
Last I heard, Liberals were getting a new guy.
This seems wrong to me. I am not sure I like what Abbott represents. Are you sure we cant get Turnbull back?Tony Abbott wrote:
"I think everyone should have some familiarity with the great texts that are at the core of our civilisation," Mr Abbott told the Herald Sun.
"That includes, most importantly, the Bible.
"I think it would be impossible to have a good general education without at least some serious familiarity with the Bible and with the teachings of Christianity.
True, and the most likely way to win an election is to win the undecided and middle ground voters. But the Liberals are trying to account for the shocking polling since losing the election.Spark wrote:
I don't see the point of obsessing over the base in a country with compulsary turnout... who else are they going to vote for? Labor?
Last edited by Spark (2010-02-10 02:25:58)
I've been saying a carbon tax is the best option for years, so have many economists. The problem is the three letters at the end.Dilbert_X wrote:
Is anyone talking about a carbon tax? Seems obvious and simple..
As for Federalising the river, it would just mean Abbotts chums get the water.
Last edited by Spark (2010-02-10 02:28:17)
The money has to come from somewhere. Where the ETS sort of funds itself, Abbotts scheme comes from taxpayer money, which of course comes from us. The govt predicted that his scheme would actually result in a 13% increase in CO2 emmisions. Of course they are biased, but I dont think it will be effective, especially in light of abbots real feelings on CC.Spark wrote:
Recap: Abbott doesn't like the ETS, instead of a "big tax" market-based mechanism, he suggests a regulatory mechanism instead where everything is done through pure regulation. But he has exactly the same target in terms of emissions cuts, so the only question is what kind of beauracracy would that create (given that the government has to do everything under his scheme instead of the market, common sense tells me "a fuckload") and how much more it would cost (which I don't think anyone has the foggiest clue about to be honest).
The Greens have bought this to the govt as an interim solution till an ETS gets up. Ross Garnaughts report recommended that this should happen, and apparently the govt is looking at it.Dilbert wrote:
Is anyone talking about a carbon tax? Seems obvious and simple..
As long as their customers are willing to pay, thats the key.Burwhale wrote:
a company can produce as much CO2 as they like as long as they can afford to pay.
The train of thought here is that "surely there is no possibility that the federal government could be worse than the states". It's that bad.Theres no quick fix to this one, at lesat Federalising will remove some costsof the extra level of govt, but by doing so, they are further removed from the hospitals ( in my mind anyway) and therefore decisions may be slower.
Frankly I don't think anyone believes the states are capable of fixing it themselves. Practical concerns first and foremost.Burwhale wrote:
True story spark. And there is merit in removing the costs of the state govt. However if the feds cant do it better then it will be a massive waste of money. If they could allocate funding directly to hospitals, and respond to feedback effectivley, then it may be worth it.
Can't say I didn't see that comingFlecco wrote:
I heard a group of hackers calling themselves 'Anonymous' have been attacking Aus govt. sites over the internet filter.
