All Activity

Why China Is Quietly Winning At EV Battery Recycling

I simply pointed out that the recycling industry is tooling up to provide recycling. There have been lots of doomsday sadsacks claiming that EV's are a pollution problem. It looks like the EV has a more profitable recycling lifecycle than piston powered vehicles.

I thought He Gave a good answer. Nev

Most likely they would.

Batteries for recycling have some amount of dollar value. If we sent our batteries to the USA, woulf the recylcing plant in the USA have to pay a tariff on them?

People will Work HIM Out It just takes longer for the ones who believe in only the cult of the Personality The President in the USA has too Much Power and T Rump exercises it beyond the extent the LAW and CONSTITUTION allows. Democracy is there in Name Only. MONEY rules Buys Judges and Favours the Ordinary Man can only dream of. Corruption rules supreme.. Nev

Philosophy for beginners....

I may be rude sometimes but I believe in democracy and the rule of law, two things that pathetic excuse for a human does not. Have fun in your far right bubble GON.

Lots of rumours that Ivanka is Barron's mother.

This morning, my little son said, "My ear hurts, Dad." Concerned, I asked, "Inside or out?" He walked away, then returned through the back door. "Both, Dad." I think I'll cash in his university savings account.

Meet the recyclers (in USA). For those who care about recycling lithium batteries, there are significant recycling companies in USA. Li-Cycle (NYSE: LICY) alone has recycling centers in Alabama, Arizona, and Germany. the German plant alone is processing 10,000 tonnes a year and the coming New York one is expected to move 35,000 tonnes. https://events.naatbatt.org/lithium-battery-recycling-workshop-vii/meet-the-recyclers/

More perverse than "I grab them by the pussy" More perverse than telling a very young girl (about 8 years old "I will be dating you in about 10 years. More perverse than being found civilly liable for sexual assault. More perverse than calling Epstein a terrific guy. I could go on and on.

Piss off to the USA then, if it's not to your liking here. We have fair elections. He did say, If she wasn't MY daughter, I'd be dating her. A bit ODD to my way of thinking . He free's Crooks IF their Mother donates enough to him. He's a Perve Himself. Calls under age young Females "the Merchandise" and recommends Grabbing Women by the pussy. . Nev

Disgusting perverse leftwing rhetoric, you blokes.

I can't remember when I last wrote a "letter". The only thing we send by snail mail is Christmas cards, and even they are becoming less and less. This Christmas I only sent them to my siblings and my wife's siblings. My parents generation died years ago. I only received 4 cards this year. Most of my communication is by email or text. Phone conversations are decreasing, because I have great difficulty hearing, even with headphones. Non-family friends are Facebook friends, (former colleagues, etc.), with whom I communicate by FB direct messages.

I'm just imagining an AI untittingly trained on Jerry's posts.

I thought he wanted to shag his daughter, not his mum...

On the topic of snail mail, Trump is allegedly going to take the fact of that delay to get rid of mail-in votes. The current system is that for a mail-in to be counted it has to be postmarked on or before election day. The problem is that there is often a delay between when a vote paper is dropped in a mail box and when it is stamped. That means that votes posted on or near voting day might not get postmarked in time, so the vote is not counted. The only way that a person voting near election day can be sure of their vote counting is to hand the envelope to a post office and see that it is postmarked then and there. Not many people would do that. Of course, if they had election day on a Saturday, and didn't gerrymander the electorates, they might get a fairer election. But fair elections aren't what US democracy is about.

Fair enough. We will just have to agree to disagree

Quote snipped. I am well aware of stolen mail scams and how they work. They are by far in the minority compared to standard email scams that are successful. They aren't even the head of the pimple of the back of pure email scams. As I mentioned it is a question of risk, and at the moment, the risk is far greater from email phishing scams alone than stolen email, whether or not they are followed up by targeted phishing. Yes, but they don't send the letters. Their prices will reflect the cost of sending the declining economies of scale., They can do the same as Danish Poste and stop sending letters, and leave the goivernment to send its letters through private contractors or couriers if required. My point ius yes, it is and will become more expensive to send letters. But governments (the senders of the letters) are not known for cost efficiency. Over here, the Royal Mail was privatised years ago. With the declining economies of scale and the introdution of competition, it is expensive. Apartt from 2 years, they have still turned a profit on letter delivery - it is true that parcel delivery (Parcel Force arm of the Royal mail)_ is more profitable. Sort of yes, and sort of no. Yes, people are fre to make a decision to send a letter or not. But the Danish government will only send emails except for specific exemptions (I forgot to put this in my previous post): You may not be happy to accept email because you anre not confident in its security. Too bad. My lazy comment is not aimed at yourself. And it is meant in terms of not always thinking things through when taking the new, more convenient option. Some people are more diligent than others, but how much fraud was before people started taking notice of this risks with eBanking, ecommerce, clicking on email links and the sort. A little forethought - not much - would have identified these riuks and have people take mitigating actions well beforehand rather than play catch up. And I am not saying don't do email.. I never have. It would be a ridiculous proposition for your sone to send a daily letter (well in advance of the time) to tell his employees the priorities of that day. Of course that is the case. In that case the risk is low. I imagine, someone in his company receiving a phishing email to sign onto home banking or they lose their life savings purportedly originating from your son would be treated with the disdain it should be. The examples you give are simply not applicable to what I was referring to.

Yes I get that, and I am in a similar situation with my mother. The majority of scam emails come whether or not you get letters delivered to your letter box. This is just the nature of email. Prior to me taking over my mother's affairs, she did everything by mail and yet, like the rest of us received plenty of dodgy emails. Sure, an email falsely tied to a business you may be dealing with can look more convincing. I believe it is not uncommon for stolen mail to be the entry point for many scammers. From Scamwatch "A stolen mail scam involves criminals intercepting physical mail (like bank statements, credit cards, or personal documents) to steal your identity and money, often using stolen info for fraudulent purchases or opening new accounts, and sometimes they follow up with phishing texts/emails impersonating legitimate services (like AusPost or myGov) to get more details; to protect yourself, use lockable mailboxes, report theft to police/Scamwatch, and be wary of suspicious links claiming to be from official sources. How Stolen Mail Scams Work Physical Theft: Criminals steal mail, especially from unsecured mailboxes, to find credit cards, bank details, and personal info. Fraudulent Use: They use stolen cards to buy expensive items (like designer goods) or open new accounts. Phishing Follow-up: They send fake texts or emails (e.g., pretending to be Australia Post or Services Australia) with links to fake websites to steal login details after the initial mail theft. " As a Government Business Enterprise AusPost is expected to be self-funded. I totally agree. This IS what is happening in Denmark. There is a social obligation that Postnord has to ensure that there is a letter service. If no one else will provide it, then Postnord will have to resume doing it. I definitely would not be in favour of Australia Post stopping letter deliveries if there were no viable alternatives. If I get information posted to my physical mailbox from the tax department, and it gets stolen or I throw it out without shredding it, and it is used to help steal my identity or some other fraud I suspect I might be culpable to some degree. If I go to MyGov or my bank and my details are compromised, it is not my fault unless I have broken the rules That is a tad judgey. We are considering going on holiday to NZ and staying for 6 months, just bumming around in a campervan. I suppose I could give a neighbour a key to my letter box and perhaps ring them each week to see if there are any bills for me, or I could go on managing my life whilst travelling. My son owns a company with about 6 full-time employees, some live locally, but some work remotely. They are not going to post a letter about what tasks need to be finished that day. A couple of years ago, my son spent 6 months in the US. He still needed to work and communicate with the rest of the company. At the moment he is in Beijing, touring but also getting some work done. The very nature of his work means that he has contractors overseas. A letter just is not going to cut it. For many things, the snail part of snail mail is a problem; things move faster these days. In both of the above examples, there are risks and rewards. Both we, and my son understand online safety, sure we could get fooled by an elaborate scam but again risk and rewards, not just being silly, naive or lazy people. Now of course, there are elderly folks who are not connected, or maybe just don't like the idea. That is absolutely fine. There should always be a service for them. I can't see that this must be a government enterprise. Both federal and state governments subsidise air routes. In the old days, of course, we had government-owned TAA. Again, referring to my initial post, nobody is being forced online. The number of Danish folk already online, of course, is higher than in most countries (I wonder if they have more fraud?) In life we weigh up risks and rewards. It is no doubt safer to fly interstate, but sometimes a road trip is fun while recognising the risk (some people even ride motorbikes)

I agree., which is why I don't buy Chinese (and from other oppressive regimes) where I can.. I can't always buy something not made in China. It is a sad indctment of humanity that we care more about saving a few bucks that how we direct our resources to make a better world (which is subjective - I know). China has obtained dominance on price, justlike Japan and Taiwan befoew. The difference is the former allowed their economies to develop naturally, whereas China oppressively keeps their costs artifically low against the rest of the world. Acknowledging China is the super-manufacturer as a result, my purchase decision tree is something like: If I can source it made from non-oppresive regimes (China is one), buy it from a non-oppressive regime. If I can only source from an oppressive regime (e.g. China), try and buy from a firm from a non-oppresive regime that set up in the oppresive regime and accept that it somewhat endorses something even worse. If I can only buy it from a firm owned and manufactured in an oppressive regime, then so be it. Also, try not top buy from a non-oppressive regime where the is owned by a Chinese or other oppresive regime firm.. And of course, consider if I really need it if I can't source it the first way. It's a personal choice.

I agree with your post of which I quoted an extract. In your case, it is perfectly fine. In other cases, such as my mother who lives in a country town outside of Melbourne, it is very high risk - not the valid emails - but the phishing. I reiterate, these are becoming increasingly sophisticated and even tech savvy people fall for them from time to time. In my mother's case, I have imposed on her a rule to contact me or my brother before clicking any link she thinks is valid. There are millions like her in different demographics. What about those who live independently, but are metnally challenged, etc. There was an article in The Age or the Guardian a few yers ago where an IT journo unwittingly got scammed and he or she admitted she should have known better. I get all of the economics and the decline in mail. However, a govenment isn't about efficiency first - to suggest it is, is a furphy. And let's be frank, neither are large corporations. My point is it is not right to force a method of delivery - allow people to opt in - no probs. But the system is not safe. It has been implemented by the organisations safely in the way you describe, but that does not stop the scammers using to to scam people with far more success than is reported in the media. When the technology is safe enough, then great - force everyone to use it. My term about laziness wasn't people are lazy. But we rush into new convenient methods without thinking through the consequences. Australia is trailblazin as is the UK with what I think are sensibly targeted controls - a balance of protecting the rights of communications through the internet but curtailing the worst of it. It has taken how many years, in the face of those vociferous voices promoiting no internet censorship in th epursuit of free speech. In 2000, I argued in a forum that the internet had morphed into another mass media distribution channel and that, like TV, radio, newspapers, and the like, where moral-based censorship applied that still allowed free speech, the internet should be subject to such controls - with an opt in based on people who could verify their age (I suggested credit card or optical recogniton of official government docs wold suffice). This would allow the ISP to unblock traffic to their client and their client assumes responsibility at that stage. The team promoting non-censorship[ raised the government oppression argument, which I agree with, but also put the responsibility on the parents of parental control, which I totally disagree with. Even today, there is evidence that a massive majority of people do not understand the technology sufficiently to adopt practices to protect children from harmful content, and neither have the knowledge, resources, or time to continually monitor. The UK parliament decided to not require an opt into adult content, however, required the telcos to strengthen the parental controls they could adopt at the ISP level. This omitted one big issue - VPNs - which allow circumvention of these controls. A friend of mine, who works in a similar space to me, was heartbroken when he leaned his sone was addicted to porn - and some not great aspects of it from an early age of around 14, despite deplying ISP based and local parental contol software. Kids are clever with tech and his son used all sorts of circumvention However, if the ISP had have blocked all of this sort of content and blocked VPN TCP/IP packets, his child may have grown up without the affliction. I am far from an expert on cybersecurity. We have dedicated teams and I would be paid a lot more than I am if I were an expert. But we received mandatory training and I try and keep myself well read in the area. I don't, as a habit, store documents on the cloud for a few reasons. Firstly, I think they are generally secure - but only as secure as anything else. Cybercrime is not the dark-hooded chap crackign passwords - it relies in the weakest links - software and human vulnerabilities. Therefore, Cloufd storage, IMHO, is as vulnerable as any other organisation - except they do our quite a bit of money into cybe protection. But recently, both Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure werehacked causing outages.. so that speaks for itself. The other thing I don't like about it is that despite assurances, I don't trust these organisations to not snoopp on my stiff, use it to train artifical intelligence models (to their risk with my stuff), and, probably with the exception oif Apple, provide a back door to law enforcement. Not that I have anything to hide per se. I use all local storage except for some photos and I pay Drop Box a small subscription if I want to share files/data. I use NAS disk array for backups, firewalled so that only a certain set of machines machine on my network should be able to access it.

Why should they take any notice of that unless he props them up with cash handouts?

Pulling down the East Wing to build a ballroom an name it after himself; adding his name to the JFK Memorial Center, and calling his New Your Building Trump Tower, is a clear indication that Trump suffers from an Ediface Complex.