Marty_d

Which century are you living in Spacey? Cities are full of struggling students and wage slaves. Certain leafy suburbs may have a concentration of mansions, but the truly rich live far from the hoi polloi.

Karma Chameleon. Strangely enough the second time today that song has been mentioned (someone brought up "culture club" at work, and well, you can't think Culture Club without that song worming its way into your ears!)

I bet Newton wasn't impressed with that experiment, and as a victim I bet he moved!

Because big business is so much more trustworthy...

The Donald loves dicktators. (And normal taters, as long as they're deep fried from Macca's).

Hopefully the Greens will pick up another seat. It's going to take a while for all the preferences to be calculated. In terms of Tassie's conservativeness, yes, there are vast areas of the state which are dyed-in-the-wool conservative. However I think the south is a bit more progressive - our federal member is Julie Collins (ALP) and she's been elected in every election since 2007. I think the JLN is a bit of a game-changer this time around but I'm not sure whether it'll stay a force or not. Remember that these are people endorsed by Jacquie - they might be great, they might be absolute nut jobs, they may not even agree with each other - who can tell. I know that despite Jacquie herself not supporting the proposed AFL stadium, one of her picks has said he's all for it - so there may be the interesting situation where her party votes on both sides of an issue. Labor lost themselves this one. They seem a bit afraid to put their head above the parapet on any issue so they seem like they don't stand for anything. In terms of the stadium they said they wanted to "renegotiate" with the AFL, but they really want a Tasmanian team. What would the AFL do, say "sure, have your team, we don't need the stadium we agreed to with the previous lot"? Not a chance. So people who are against the new stadium as a) a complete waste of money, b) situated somewhere with no parking planned and c) you've already got a stonking big stadium over the river (guess which side of this issue I'm on) really couldn't vote Labor on that issue. That's Rebecca White's 3rd loss so I reckon the knives will be out. She seems nice enough and makes the right noises occasionally but I don't think her position is too viable. Wouldn't be surprised if Dean Winter ends up leading the opposition before too long.

You can get some surprisingly good stuff at Vinnies.

Anyone who wants to change places with him falls out of a window.

I just finished reading "Norse Mythology" by Neil Gaiman. Basically he takes all the old stories of the Norse gods, Odin, Thor, Loki, Frigga etc - and writes them in a way that they're interesting and engaging. He gives the characters, well, character - you see their motivations and faults, it's not just "...then Loki did this and Thor did that". Got me thinking that if the current religions want to stay relevant, maybe they should update their own books. Let's face it, the bible is poorly written and about as interesting as the ingredients list on packaged food. A lot of "begatting" and no character development whatsoever. I can't speak for the other books but I'm guessing they wouldn't be reviewed favourably by an unbiased critic.

Credibility is zero to the outside world. Unfortunately he controls the narrative within Russia. Didn't take long for him to start blaming Ukraine for this attack (we all expected it) - so watch him now, he'll just ramp it up as more of a reason to keep making war with Ukraine. With all dissenting voices silenced the Russian people are only hearing his spin.

We have one bloody amazing advantage over most countries - we don't share a border. Therefore if an invasion of Australia is attempted it won't be tanks, artillery and hundreds of thousands of troops as it is in Ukraine. It'll be aircraft, drones, ballistic missiles and surface ships, and to a lesser extent subs. In my opinion - which is pretty useless given I don't know any more about military matters than the rest of the civilian population - we'd be better off developing a comprehensive drone capability for air, sea and under sea. For $50b which is supposedly going to get us 12 subs - well, probably 8, maybe 4 if we're lucky - we could build half a million $100k drones. (Yes, I know we'd have to develop manufacturing facilities, component supply chains, training, ground stations, satellites, maintenance, etc etc, so we'd probably end up with less than half that number - but it's still a formidable arsenal). That kind of shield, especially if we could develop effective anti-missile defences, would serve us far better than having nukes.

Funny watching the tally room panel last night. Rockliff comes in and gives a rousing victory speech - ignoring the fact that the libs vote went down by 13%, even if they form minority government they'll have less seats than before he called the early election (which was supposed to get them to majority), and now he has that mouth-chewing revenant Erika Betts sharpening the knife. Nice own goal Jezza!

We would never have a large number anyway. Therefore we would lose against any adversaries that did, if it came to nuclear war. So why do it. Plus the fact that the world needs less nuclear weapons, not more. What we need is great intelligence agencies, effective conventional forces, effective leadership and great diplomats.

No.

In all of that, they never showed an "after" shot of the concrete wall. Was there a crater? Was it demolished? Was there just a big black spot?

Please explain the process of how they determine the goodness and trueness of said jurors...

If she'd paid to prebook a specific seat, and they subsequently sell it to someone else, then unless she agreed to that possibility in the terms and conditions somewhere then I would think they'd be in breach of contract, and should be reported to the ACCC.

How the hell are we going to cope with two potato head pollies?

That's what I thought too.

OME, I'm not doubting your qualifications. You did say 2.8 seconds in a previous post then 2.4 above. However either your maths are incorrect, or the conclusions, because another site lists 10 cars which all stop from 100 kmh in under 2.8 seconds. https://thebrakereport.com/car-lists-10-fastest-cars-stopping-from-100-km-h/

F*ck him. I hope he dies in a ditch as a pauper, after his treatment of his country and its people, and the threat his behaviour poses to the environment and the world at large.

They don't help themselves much sometimes. Check out the vision from these bodycams and tell me if that's a reasonable level of community policing. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-18/how-proactive-policing-quotas-sent-nsw-police-searches-soaring/103579210

Almost 3 seconds to stop from 100? I don't feel that's excessive. I'd rather stop in 2.8 seconds than in 0.1. I can't do the math for a braking calculation (I assume it's not a straight line graph) - but at 100km, in 2.8 seconds your car has gone 78m. So more than 1.5 times the length of an Olympic swimming pool. I can't see why that's so incredible that a vehicle should be able to come to a stop in that time. After all - the tyres would break grip and skid under too much deceleration, before you got any more than perhaps a mild bruise from the seat belt.

That kid is made of rubber!

True, but Aukus is f*cked anyway. American shipyards can't produce enough Virginia class subs for themselves let alone anyone else, so regardless of who's in office I don't think it'll happen. He'll just do a public appeal and his basket of deplorables will dig deep for him. Who needs food, clothes and health care when you have a criminal ex/current billionaire to save.