Marty_d

So... the fact that in order for these things to be financially viable they'll have to set electricity charges at roughly $200 per megawatt hour, plus inflation, for the NEXT 30 YEARS - while renewables are currently half that and falling, don't factor into your decision?

Voldemort has pegged his chances of electoral success firmly to replacing ageing coal fired stations with nuclear powerplants, and having no emissions targets at all. Now to my mind, this policy is driven by: ideology - "anything but wind, solar and storage" keeping the fossil fuel companies / Nationals happy - "don't worry about it mate. These things will take decades to build. Buying you some time to make more profits" politics - "we CAN'T agree with Labor, no matter what. We need a point of difference" What it's not driven by is: economics. CSIRO estimate each power station will cost $16b, and they want 7 of them. That's $112b (before blowouts), of which private enterprise won't touch with a bargepole, so they'll be government owned. (Aren't the libs meant to be the free market party? What is this, Stalinist Russia??) polling. They haven't done any. They can't even get the States to agree to have power plants on their land, much less the residents. climate action. It'll take 15 - 20 years to get these going. We know that solar and wind can be running much sooner and we all remember the SA battery... "100 days or it's free". In the meantime, no targets. As someone described it on the radio this morning, it's an exercise in economic and ideological stupidity. I agree with that sentiment. Interested in what others think too though. Do you like the idea? Would you vote for this?

If it's put up well and reasonably rigid, it should be ok. Wouldn't want to get any moisture behind it.

You already know that even if you're of average intelligence, 50% of the population is stupider than you. They exist, and worse, vote for people who really represent them.

Arguing with nutters is like wrestling with a pig Peter - you just get dirty and the pig likes it. In terms of "fundamentalist atheist" it's a true oxymoron, you can't be a fervent believer when the thing you espouse is a lack of belief. Something just made up by believers, much like Trump calling anyone with a normal point of view "antifa".

You'll see it looking at you Nev. Our brains are designed to see these in everything.

Neigh.

Where's the horse's space suit?

Oi! I resemble that remark.

How did I get the label of resident communist? 😄 My pitch to right wingers is to think about societal issues from an economic perspective. If you have inequality and a large pool of desperate and disenfranchised poor, you're going to get higher levels of crime, substance abuse and ongoing psychological and physical injury which adds cost to many government agencies including justice and health. Usually the cost of these is far higher than preventative action like, for example, universal free childcare / early education, school lunches, affordable housing, and free preventative medical care like dental and annual GP checkups. So as a pure economical argument it makes sense to look after the poor and reduce inequality.

As stupid as his demands are, there are some in the Republican leadership who will want to accept them.

None of it was "revealed by god". It's all by men to control other men and women.

Well they probably don't work real well on things that don't grow.

AI in action

No idea, but I'm guessing the hourly charge was similar.

Can't lose what you never had...

..and better English

I don't doubt that you did. Just wondering why you're wasting any sympathy on a rapist, sociopathic, habitually lying, convicted felon. One who has his own jet, so flying down to Florida and back to pick up the gun would be easier for him than travelling across town would be for our hypothetical trailer park felon.

I think that fairness means the law applies equally to everyone. If the felon is an unemployed man living in a trailer park and he owns a gun which he's left at his mother's trailer park across town, would the judge give him more than 14 days leeway to go get it? There is no difference.

What, so he deserves more leeway than other convicted felons with firearms? Why?

If you're going to go, and you're getting a beer, there's nothing wrong with the sentence.

Russia is a kleptocracy not communist. Putin is just the biggest gangster. Hitler may have formed/taken over the National Socialist party, but he was a fascist. You're correct in that the lines have blurred. Possibly now they are "for the people" (left) or "for the billionaires" (right).

Try a different instructor. It may have been him, not you.

The Shire, I reckon. Wouldn't be surprised if her surname is Baggins.

You may have noticed I said "right wing AND despotic leaders" - yes despots on the left also do it but it seems far more common from the right wingers.