All Activity

I think he sent Vance as punishment because Vance was against the war. That puts him neatly in the hot seat. Trump has already said publicly in a meeting that if Vance pulls a deal off, Trump will take all the credit, but if he fails Vance will own it.

Well it wouldn't surprise at all actually , 40% of the cost in building a new house now is tax. Over 40 actually. Got a notice about 2yrs back first time ever, that l now how to pay them over a k a yr on a small block of land l have , just because they fkg need more money. So they've done absolutely nothing to help me buy that or pay for it back when, rates, nothing, but now they tell me l must pay them for what ? Well , take your pick. Most Aussies have no clue about this but we've got over 100taxes on us, just everyday working Aussies and families. They say everyday at work until Thursday, goes to the Gov. So yeah , ofc they'll be taxing the family home one way or other sooner or later if they aren't already in hidden this or thats, you can bet on it.

Fancy sending Vance for negotiations , the blokes hated all over the world. At any rate yeppa, so much for that. Where to from here ladies and gents eh ?

I did just discovered an Australian solar panel manufacturer called Tindo. I don't know anything about their prices, though. Apparently excellent quality but more expensive. According to AI, 20% to 30% more expensive

Me neither. but the first movers in highe tech industries often get an advantage and retain it. Nethlerlands still leads windill manufacture even though China is in on the act. Tesla still retains a decent share of the market in the wake of massive Chinese investment and number of entrants to the market. Despite Europe and Japan this time being the laggard, they too are able to have an EV market that, thanks to Chump, s growing. Australia seems to sell its IP off and not willing to invest for the long term gains. China produces things cheaper - US and European manufacturers set up there and own the IP and the profits, at least. Even the vid says the good profressor was about dissemination of information - i.e. give away the IP? One of the reasons was there was little reception outside of advanced scientific (e.g satellite) use. We just don't embrace the future that well. A lot of people fall into the "Ok, renewables" or whatever the technology is expensive to deploy. When has capital intensive industries been cheap to deploy?: But these developments often displace the industry that was cheap to run... we never seem to learn the lesson. Returns are based on innovation investment, not operational costs. That is what I meant by another lost opportunity - we develop the future, but we don't embrace it and capitalise on it - systemically (yes, there are a few examples where we buck the trend). I see it being the same in the UK.. And now, oddly, which Chump making America grate again, his desire to roll back the ages is putting the US farther back, quicker than it has been going.

I Don't think we could beat China's efficiency at Making these things. Their scale of production and Large Home Market go together. Internal Brand competition forces Profit Margins lower. They are Less than 1/4 of the Initial Prices and More efficient as well. Nev

Sadly, it looks like yet another commerical opportunity missed by Australia, but at least we are starting to realise the benefits, even in the face of stiff propaganda provided courtesy of the fossil fuel industry through both social and mainstream media, soaked up by a largely but decreasingly gullible public

The Have to get it to you, old chap by wires. PS it will come by itself and they can't stop it or charge for it . Local communities could fund their own Solar/ battery systems. This is only the Beginning of something great. Nev

But how can they keep charging $600-$1,000 per quarter when it's only solar electricity? It's just sunlight hitting fancy glass panels. There's no enormous coal fired power station involved in solar electricity.

The Powers that Be don't want you to have cheap Power. Why would they? It's the beginning of the end of their stranglehold over you.. Nev

The proposal is to place all these crowbars (& other nasty explodable things) in low orbit. This is in order to have a quick deployment. I thought that low orbit stuff is always a decaying orbit. How do they plan to prevent this?

GON, I was talking about the conduct of the trial - the presentation of evidence to prove the allegation, or the rebuttal to disprove it. Also the judge can rule on the admissability of evidence. These things take place before the jury has made its decision. Once it has, the jurors are dismissed and play no further part in the trial. Thereafter comes the sentencing process if the accused has been found guilty. The judge has a number of sentencing options which can be used, ranging from no penalty to the maximum prescribed by the particular law. There are other intermediate sentences, usually called diversionary sentences which aim at rehabilitation.

I believe "shah mat" was anglicised to "Checkmate" for chess.

Not necessarily, I've seen in a news report, a judge sentence a muslim father to only a token 3 years jail for stabbing a bloke to death, and he said" "The Public won't understand this sentence". He imposed it for cultural reasons. In other words, in Islam, it's ok to kill someone who brings dishonor on the family. Actually it was the father's daughter's non-muslim boyfriend who was murdered, just south of Sydney.

This is an interesting telling of the story of Iran post-WWII.

Just a bit of history about Iran in the 20th Century.

Haven't bought any Papers since 1973. You Get VIEWs, not News. Why pay to be subject to Blatant Propaganda.? . Nev

Notice how much effort was made to Not allow proper process. Every bit of skullduggery Imaginable was employed. Nev

I believe the Southern Baptist church split from the northern over their views on slavery, ie they were all for it. So I think their views on anything would be suspect.

Guess you are not a member of a Southern Baptist Church. Theres Scopes of room for discussion of your statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial

Yes, I think the problem is that evolution has left us with “an old brain in a new world.” We’re generally good at spotting and avoiding immediate threats, but much less effective at responding to dangers that build slowly over time. That said, it’s not all bad. Humans have learned an enormous amount about the world we live in. We can cure many diseases and even travel beyond our planet—at least short distances into space. Still, the instincts of our “old brain” are constantly competing with the demands of the modern world. You can see this on a personal level. Most of us know that being overweight, eating poorly, or drinking too much is harmful in the long run—yet many of us continue these behaviours anyway. We’re remarkably good at justifying choices that aren’t in our best interests. This ties into a broader, almost unsettling question. Life appears to exist widely across Earth, which suggests the universe should be teeming with advanced civilisations. Yet, so far, we’ve found nothing—at least in our corner of it. One possible explanation is the idea of “the Great Filter.” This theory proposes that as a civilisation develops, it encounters critical stages where it must either overcome a major challenge or collapse. Nuclear weapons could be one example: a point at which humanity might have destroyed itself. While that risk hasn’t disappeared, it does seem less immediate than it once did, and there are likely other challenges we’ve successfully navigated. It may be that most civilisations fail at one of these stages. If that’s the case, it’s possible we may have already progressed further than many others. If so—well done us.

Yes, and no. Our behaviour really stems from the fact that humans are the result of evolution, not intelligent design. We collectively refuse to accept that we are animals governed by survival instinct which is fine tuned to respond to short term threats to our existence. We struggle to respond to any long term threat. Our brain just can't do it. This fact is the biggest single threat to humanity.

Perhaps the reason that teh Bondi Gunman has slipped from the front page is due to a lot of other stuff for the front pages. Things like Iran, fuel, cyclones, and Roberts-Smith are the short term attention grabbers now. Also the Bondi Bomber is awaitng the actual start of the Court appearances. He is currently On Remand.

Interesting.

@Grumpy Old Nasho - you really need to stay away from TV.. It is mainly American fed BS that doesn't even apply in their legal systems. War crimes are covered under the Crimes Act (Commonwwealth), making it a federal office; not a state offence. It is an indictable (serious) offence. However, there is no federal criminal court, the court of the first instance will be the supreme court of whichever state he is in, which is NSW. Under NSW law, all indictable offences require a trial by jury, except where, in the court's opinion, there is so much publicity that would impact almost anyone from being unbiased and potentially predisposed to a guilty verdict. But, this does not apply to federal offences thanks to s.80 (I think) of the Aussie constitrution, that requires all commonwealth (fedral) indictable offences to be tried by jury. The Bondi gunmen are also to be tried in the NSW Supreme Court in the first instance. In both cased, the defence may (and will likely) petition the court that a trial by jury would be prejudicial to the defence. If both succeed, then the outcome will be different for both defendants. Roberts-Smith will walk free. As the court will deem he cannot be granted a fair trial by jury, and the Aussie constitution requires those charged with a federal indictable offence are tied by jury, the court has no choice. It's as simple as that. Of course, the prosecution will appeal it, but if the decision is upheld, Robert Smith is a free man. In the case of the Bondi Gunman, there are 59 offences including murder, attempted murder, terrorism, firearms, etc. For the NSW state offences (murder, attempted murder , some of the firearms offences, some of the terrorism offences), he will still be tried - but by a judge only or a number of judges. He does not automatically walk free. If the defence do not agree, he will still be tried by jury. Unlike Roberts-Smith, he has no "get out of jail" card, if you will excuse the pun. But there's more.. the procedure is slightly different, especially where the judge has to give reasons for finding of fact (where a jury doesn't), It is hard to quantify, but because it holds the judge to a higher level of scrutiny, is is argued tha ut us harder to get a convuiction because they judge requires more to eliminate reasonable doubt (standard of proof the prosecution must provide) and less to introduce doubt on the balance of probabilities (standard of proof required by the defence). Every new editor (TV, magazine, radio, etc) in the country knows this. So, your theory that all the hype with Roberts Smith and the relatively low coverage of the Bondi Gunman is to lynch Roberts-Smith is so far from reality, it beggars belief. It is in Roberts-Smith best interests that there is as much bombastic coverage showing him as guilty as possible. With every press story that can predispose people to an opinion, the defence case stengthens that he can walk away a free man. Similarly for the Bondi Gunman, as if the defence will have less to do to introduce reasonable doubt (not that that will happen) or intorduce a defence (e.g. mental impairment - still slim but probably he only one he has got form what I saw as provication has to be proximate). By the press not covering it obsessively, they are prroviding less than they could to the defence to give them their best short at walking away. But, if you want to reverse the situation and have all the coverage on the Bondi person and none or less on Roberts-Smith, then you are virtually guaranteeing he will be tried, and possibly allowing enough of a sliver of hope the Bonid gunman can rely of some defence (though I doubt it, because criminal mental impariment is a much narrower definition than clincial definitions).