Leaderboard

The CSIRO has been getting some undeserved bad rap in recent times and the Age is keeping it up. If the CSIRO research was valueless, why has the CSIRO set up licence agreements with more than 20 international companies, and has received around A$430 million in licensing revenue, from their Wi-Fi research? And how did they get the 2012 European Inventors Award for their Wi-Fi contribution? The truth is often very nuanced. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/it/WLAN#:~:text=Slow wireless networking&text=CSIRO has licence agreements with,to send and receive information. https://www.naa.gov.au/visit-us/events-and-exhibitions/disrupt-persist-invent/wi-fi Don't forget the CSIRO has produced over 600 useful inventions from their research, and hold over 3000 patents. They invented the Atomic Absorption Spectrometer (which the mining and chemical industries rely on enormously today), polymer banknotes, Aeroguard, "Softly" Woollens detergent, developed myxomatosis and calicivirus for controlling rabbits, invented DME for aircraft, and produced the Relenza flu drug - along with a host of other useful products. They deserve better than a critical, incorrect put-down, in a cheap-shot media source.

There is an interesting article in the Age today which debunks the story of CSIRO inventing WiFi. The people who invented it had never heard of CSIRO. Which leads me to the second myth, the Hills Hoist. There is a photo of a rotary clothesline in Melbourne on the 1870s. I have a US Sears catalogue from 1903 which shows one, it was even made by a Mr Hill. Peter Cuffley wrote a book about this. And the rotary mower? I could go on and on.

The coin being worth more than its face value is the reason the original round 50 cent coin was taken out of circulation. The silver in it was worth more than 50 cents. But a coin itself does not need to have an intrinsic value equal to its denomination. Coins and notes are merely representations of an amount of money. Basically all forms of money, either physical or digital, are representation of the value of each person's time.

Actually, come to think of it, we should rightly be funded by the US. We allow large multi-nationals, mainly US ones in to our markets. We allow them to pay almost no tax through funds transfer or simply in the case of digital marketing and advertising, recognising revenue off shore. They take money out without paying tax. Funding us helps offset that a bit..

Although it is correct that rotary clothes lines had been created long before the Hills version, it seems that two things lead to its success. The first was that Lance Hill obtained plans for a wooden design from South Australian inventor Gerhard "Pop" Kaesler Second the patent for a crown wheel and pinion winding mechanism granted to Gilbert Toyne of Geelong in 1925 had expired, so Hill was free to use the idea. Another factor was that Hill's brother joined him and took over advertising and sales. Perhaps too, the increasing suburbanisation of Australian cities after WWII made the old style line and clothes prop system impractical, or out of style for a 'modern' home. I well remember when my parents got their Hills hoist to replace the line through arms on a post clothes line. It came disassembled in a long cardboard carton. After Dad had put it together and installed it, I was threatened with dire consequences if I was caught hanging from the arms, using it as a merry-go-round.

Who can really say? There is no written job description for the role of elected member, as there are for any other type of employment. Therefore, there is no standard against which to judge the performance of a politician. I think that the electorate can accept it if their member belongs to a Party whose proposals don't get accepted because the Party is not in government. I think that one would call an elected member useless if in fact they did not attend parliamentary sessions to at least listen to debates and to vote. If the member spent most time galivanting around the country or overseas on "fact finding" missions without providing parliament or its committees with the found facts, then that hints at being useless. In other words, the electorate should be able recall a member who does not do the parliamentary work that is being paid for. It's difficult t express myself here, but I think I can sum up my idea by saying that a member should be able to be called into line or even recalled for bludging.

Yes ! . I was on " Nexium " for many years and that is bad for your Kidneys. I just stopped taking them & told the Dr " I'll go cold Turkey " . Seem to be managing my ' reflux ' easily.. fingers crossed spacesailor

Shouldn't it always cost more to make coins than they are worth, otherwise people would melt them down and sell on the materials. Also, a cashless society is a bit of a misnomer - you may not use cash in a transaction, but it is backed up by the physical stock held in vaults.. it is still the legal tender and therefore has to exist. Unless we take the AUD crypto or part crypto with strict controls on its issuance, otherwise the cash multiplication will be astronomical, and if you think we have inflation now..

The act has been used for misconduct successfully. I sort of agree there shouldn't be an ability to move a popularly elected representative for being useless, because what is the definition of useless? Is it one bad decision, or is it never getting a vote through, or is it just not turning up to the chamber enough? What about if they do things that people don't agree with because they are ahead of their time. Imagine an MP 20 years ago working hard for the environment, and, sadly in the eyes of many today, doing so now? What about those who campaign tirelessly for DEI/D&I, rights of minorities, immigrants, etc? Are they useless because they aren't causes a lot agree with. or because they are not at the forefront of the minds of most of the voters? What about the odd commie? Are they uselsess because they pursue an ideology that is repugnant to you and I? Or what if they make one bad decision. At a company, the knee jerk reaction for a real bad decision is to fire someone. However, at a management course I was sent to in the 90s (and not to use it until much later), a case study was IBM's decision not to fire an exec who cost them $300m, then. One board member argued it would be handing the the benefits of the $300m lesson. Would we take out Albo or Marles because they are staying in AUKUS, for example? What's the threshold of usefulness? There should be (and I am sure there is in Australia) a code of conduct that all MPs have to adhere to, and if they break this, then they should be subject to sanction, depending on the nature of the breach, that could be a warning, remedial training, to automatic expulsion. The Erskine rules for the house of commons, for example, results in an expulsion for misleading parliament and not correcting the record when made aware at the ealiest possible opportunity. Boris Johnson resigned just before the speaker was about to bestow him with that honour, over partygate. Calling an MP a liar in the chamber without recalling the statement will result in an automatic ejection from the chamber for a period of time. The ex SNP leader in the House of Commons excused himself after calling BoJo a liar and not retracting it (although because he execused himself before the speaker suspended him, he was able to return for the next session). I liked that guy.

That is true, but the party cannot compel an MP to resign or vacate the house. Often though, and MP who is thrown out of a the party will not survive the next election, so I guess they are given notice.

After months of complaints about how the rain keeps missing your place, one lucky day of rain and now you want it to stop?

Yes, it's extraordinary. "If the Houthis sink more of our allies' ships than ours then we win. If we stop them sinking both ours and our allies, then we lose unless we make them pay us for saving their shipping".

In the memo sent to the journalist was this reference:- "The discussions included a moment where Vance expressed opposition to a potential strike against Houthi rebels in Yemen to clear up shipping routes through the Suez Canal because, as Vance notes, Europe, whose trade is more reliant on the Suez Canal than the US, would benefit more than the US."

Got rain yesterday - refilled my drinking water tanks. It's amazing how quickly the vegetation responds to a drink. The straw colour is going out of the paddocks and the green is showing through. I hope tomorrow is dry. I need to do some laundry.

The cost of producing coinage for Australia may in someway be offset by the income the Mint earns from producing coinage for other countries. It would be interesting to find out what sort of purchases involved that 13% of cash.

What is Communism in its purest form? It is not Capitalism. Is it Socialism? Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx. Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism. The first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked, The second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Nowadays, Communism is a type of government as well as an economic system (a way of creating and sharing wealth). In a Communist system, individual people do not own land, factories, or machinery. Instead, the government or the whole community owns these things. Obviously, individuals must have ownership of the things needed for day-to-day living - clothes, food, vehicles, the key to the door of their dwelling. Countries which claim to be "communist" actually exist within a system based on the ideas of Marx, but molded to suit the power plays of the leaders of the strongest political factions.

Totally Self-interested Opinion. I doubt it keeps MANY awake at night. Nev

The Royal Mint has refused to advise the cost of making currency. https://au.yahoo.com/finance/news/cashless-fury-as-royal-australian-mint-refuses-to-answer-key-money-question-022213067.html

Thats where CANDIDATES get "appointed' and that's where they can be replaced IF they are not happy with the Individuals Performance. It's THAT simple. This is in the House of representatives, that serve Electorates. Nev Psst. OME. You might get some rain Friday. Nev

From Jerry's reference: Unlike recall procedures in some other countries, the act does not allow constituents to initiate proceedings. Proceedings are initiated only if an MP is found guilty of wrongdoing fulfilling certain criteria. Section 1 sets out the circumstances in which the Speaker of the House of Commons – or, in certain cases, their deputies – would trigger the recall process: 1. Any custodial prison sentence, even if suspended. (A sentence longer than one year would lead to automatic removal under the Representation of the People Act 1981.) 2. A conviction for providing false or misleading expenses claims. COMMENT: There's no means of recalling a member if the member is simply proven to be useless.

Jerry, Do you think the British Courts and Prity Patel Treated Julien Assange reasonably? Of Course Russia was Communist. Have you ever heard of Marx Trotsky Engels and Lenin? Nev

But are the local Party Branch members likely to go against a sitting member since removing a sitting member results in a by-election. Obviously the local Branch members who endorsed the sitting member over all other contenders would be the candidate's closest supporters. Also the number of local Branch members is but a very small proportion of the total number of electors in an electorate. Joining a Party and being active in it is much like joining any other sort of club, say a bowls club.

Apparently it was reported on Fox News a couple of hours before he was asked about it and pretended to look blank. It's very unlikely he didn't know about it. He didn't look very convincing when he denied it.

I am not sure about Australia, and its states, but in the UK, an electorate can recall an MP for serious misconduct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_of_MPs_Act_2015#

Unless Chump was in the chat group, it sounds reasonable he had no knowledge of it, but who knows except Chump and anyone who may have told him? The fallout from this will be in US terms, marginal. The Republican leaning press (remember Bezos now owns what used to be a more critical thinking paper, the Washington Post) will go easy on him and the right will dismiss any journalism from the other side as whining rabble rouses, especially if no damage has been done. As usual, it will be the rest of the world gasping in horror. In terms of the Peter Hartcher's column, it is pretty spot on as far as I can tell. Chump's undermining of the three pillars of state and move towards them supporting his regime; and his discrimination and now pursuit of journalists and news organisations sort of calls out lurching towards autocracy, and heading the way of Xi. China is not communist - no. And I doubt it ever really was; in the same way I doubt Russia and many others that claim to be communist or socialist ever really were. Autocracy does not equal either of the two and while democracy is not perfect, it is at least a guard against autocracy. The US is moving away from democracy and look what is filling its void. China's standard of living has improved at a better rate than most countries - yes. It was starting at a very low base. But has it improved in proportion to the economic growth it has delivered? That depends on how you measure it. By pure material lifestyle, it is OK, but there are massive imbalances between the cities and rural economies, with the latter still lagging the rest of the world by a way, although the gap is decreasing. And that is natural as the Chinese government move from a manufacturing to consumer led economy - and it's own internal market will provide the powerhouse to keep its economy growing. In other words, for the central government to cement power, it must ensure its domestic market is capable of driving the economy, which means putting more wealth in the domestic market. However, if your standard of living includes basic human rights, freedoms of speech without fear of going missing in the night (it does still happen), freedom of choice, freedom of beliefs, and many other freedoms, well, I guess China hasn't really come that far.. has it? I know @bexrbetter had many good things to say about China, but ex pats have a lot more intrinsic freedoms than the indigenous population (isn't there a $200k bounty on the head of a HK lawyer living in Melbourne as he is an activist against the government of China?). The US is lurching that way. In reality, for many US citizens it is of no consequence. In fact, for many, such an autocracy is a major advantage

Mine are Like someone in their 20's they keep saying, so I suppose that's Good. I drink a lot of Filtered water. Some drugs will damage your Kidneys. Nev

The way He looks. denying all Knowledge wouldn't be difficult. . Nev

It will be interesting to see if Trump fires anyone over the unofficial Signal communications group that resulted in the Pentagon's Houtis attack plans being shared with a journalist. Hegseth, Gabbard, Rubio and Waltz are all involved in the chat group. They will be OK unless Trump thinks it makes him look bad. He has denied all knowledge of course.