Jerry_Atrick

BS! Any references, because, lets face it, if that were the case, the Murcoch press would have been all over it, and it would be easy to find. But I couldn't find anything. I could find an interview by Sarah Fergusson to Chris Bowen and Tim O'Brien. Let me summarise.. He stated that the CSIRO admitted to a parliamentary committee that they haad less expertise in certain areas than the IAEE - that's it. Whoopee do.. what does that prove? . Chris Bowen pointed out that with Tim O'Brien raised concerns that the CSIRO underestimated the lifecycle of nuclear plants and their operating capacity; the CSIRO took it onboard, and ran the numbers and found there was no basis for that assertion and even if there was, there would be little change: https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/transcripts/interview-sarah-ferguson-abc-730-4 Nothing I could find suggested the CSIRO contracted out the work, let alone to a subcontractor with no specific experience. Think about.. Globally respected scientific organisation contracts out research in a subject it has no experience in........ to an organisation that has no experience in it... Quite a stark raving made assertion. But people will use anything to justify their postiion no matter how much the facts show otherwise. Virtually every respected organisation in the world that has looked at it says no.. but hey.. go by your recollection of a totally illogical scenario...

What has Trump done now? Backtracked his trade war, again: https://on.ft.com/3Q7M0Ue He is showing himself to be as smart as Putin was invading Ukraine.. easy peasy lemon squeezy.. Little too much lemon, me thinks.

Good point.. and other states too.. Victoria, although disproportionately reported by the MSM, is not the only one.. Just so happens, Adnrews wasn't as hated by the MSM as the others: https://grattan.edu.au/news/34b-and-counting-beware-cost-overruns-in-an-era-of-megaprojects/ It's more about the size and complexity than any particular government. Let's dface it, they provide the costs by the contractors engaged, they don't come up with a number whipped from their own posterior.

That's a very good point... The question then becomes which are more likely to run into overruns, and what is the magnitude of those overruns? I don't know, so I asked the internet about the difference of cost and time blowouts of nuclear versus renewable project, and the closest response to the question I got was from AI, which cites interesting articles on why nuclear is more suscetoble to these effects: However, haven't had enough time to research myself, so am happy to have AI corrected, but it sort of makes sense that nuclear would be more prone to overruns as it is more complex, and as a species, we are pretty terrible at estimating things, especially when confirmation biask kicks in as we want to do the project. But, even assuming there is the same chance an in relative terms, it has the same impact, by definition, the hideously expensive, complex, and long durations to build nuclear as opposed to renewables will mean that the impact of these overruns will be massively higher.. does it not? And so why a) go to the initial much longer term and much higher expense and then incur much longer duration and much higher additional costs... for the same output... This quotes a CSIRO analysis. OK, it is summarised by the climate council - I don't have time to review it, but even if these are slight bendings of the truth, you would be crazy in Australia to go nuclear today; 20 years ago - yeah - but today - just plain stupid: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/csiro-confirms-nuclear-fantasy-would-cost-twice-as-much-as-renewables/ To quote - the cost of electricity will be double. Lets say thats an overstatement - even if it is 50% higher, why wouls yoou pursue it? Then the average cost overruns in relative, not absolute terms puts nuclear storage (and we are going to need some) at 230%, and nuclear power at 120%. Solar is 1%, wind is 13%, and hydro is 75% (which would be attribued to its higher complexity)... Even at the highest overrun, it is 60% of nuclear's lowest average overruns, but I would hesitate to guess most of Autralia's renewable mix would be solar and wind. You don't need me to explain the maths of the stupidity of pursuing nuclear in Australia on the pure economics.. And, it will probably create as many jobs, and the best thing is they will be distributed in the regions rather than concentrated.

Indeed they are.. But there is something about flyigng IFR over long distances, even on a VMC day, that makes it Oh So Nice....

Pretty well much.. I am always checking the market for all three. There is a good looking TB21 in Aus her: https://www.planesales.com.au/details/Listing/Single-Engine-Propeller/11168/2003-Socata-TB-21TC-Trinidad-Aircraft?utm_source=ListingID-11168&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=2003 Socata TB-21TC Trinidad Aircraft That is not too bad a price, to be honest, but over here, they command around the equivalent of $330k

Gave me this: When evaluating the SOCATA TB20 Trinidad in the pre-owned aircraft market, it's essential to consider its pricing relative to comparable models like the Cessna 182 Skylane and the Piper PA-28R Arrow. Here's a breakdown based on available listings: SOCATA TB20 Trinidad 1986 Model: Listed at $169,900 with 2,678 total hours and 470 hours since factory remanufacture. citeturn0search0 1998 Model: Initially listed at $150,000, the price was later adjusted to $259,900. This aircraft has 1,925 total hours and features updated avionics and interior. citeturn0search1 1985 Model: Priced at $264,000, this aircraft has 3,060 total hours and 324 hours since engine overhaul. citeturn0search2 1989 Model: Available for €130,000 (approximately $144,053) with 3,866 total hours. citeturn0search3 Cessna 182 Skylane The Cessna 182 is renowned for its reliability and widespread availability. Pre-owned models typically range from $150,000 to $250,000, depending on factors like age, total flight hours, and avionics upgrades. Piper PA-28R Arrow The Piper Arrow, known for its retractable gear and solid performance, usually falls within the $100,000 to $200,000 range on the pre-owned market. Prices vary based on model year, condition, and equipment. Comparative Analysis The SOCATA TB20 Trinidad often commands higher prices in the pre-owned market compared to its competitors. This premium can be attributed to its spacious cabin, advanced avionics, and European design. However, potential buyers should weigh these advantages against factors like maintenance considerations and parts availability. In contrast, the Cessna 182 Skylane and Piper PA-28R Arrow offer more affordable options with extensive support networks, making them attractive choices for many pilots. When considering a pre-owned aircraft, it's crucial to assess individual aircraft history, maintenance records, and specific equipment to determine the best value for your investment. ----------------------- So, not too bad a tool at all;.

It was mildly entertaining. What I really like about it, it it doesn't complain about my typos 😉 I typed this: And got this: The SOCATA TB20 Trinidad had several strong attributes, including modern avionics, a spacious and comfortable cabin, and solid performance. However, it never became one of the most popular light aircraft due to several key reasons: 1. Higher Cost Compared to Rivals 💰 The TB20 was more expensive than competitors like the Cessna 182 Skylane and Piper Arrow. Many buyers opted for these more affordable alternatives. 2. Limited Support Network 🛠️ SOCATA, a French manufacturer, had a smaller service network compared to American brands like Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft. This made maintenance and parts availability more challenging, especially in the U.S. 3. Market Dominance of U.S. Aircraft 🇺🇸 The American general aviation market was heavily dominated by established manufacturers. Pilots and flight schools preferred brands with strong reputations and widespread availability. 4. Competition from Cirrus and Mooney ✈️ In the late 1990s and 2000s, Cirrus SR22 and Mooney M20 aircraft offered superior performance, modern safety features (like parachute systems), and better marketing strategies. 5. Fuel Efficiency and Performance Trade-offs ⛽ While the TB20 had respectable performance (cruising at around 155 knots), it wasn't significantly better than competitors. Some pilots found it less fuel-efficient for its speed compared to Mooney models. 6. Production and Brand Shifts 🔄 The TB20 was produced by SOCATA, which later became Daher. The company shifted its focus to larger turboprops (like the TBM series), limiting further development and support for the TB line. Conclusion Despite its excellent handling, comfort, and European styling, the TB20 Trinidad struggled against lower-cost and better-supported aircraft. It remains a well-regarded aircraft but never reached mainstream success. Would you like a comparison with a specific competitor? 🚀 Now, I know why...

The Great Debate: Cessna 172 vs. Piper PA-28-161—Which One is Better at Making You Look Like a Pilot? If you’ve ever set foot on a general aviation airfield, you’ve probably overheard a heated debate between flight instructors, student pilots, and hangar-flying veterans about one of aviation’s greatest rivalries: the Cessna 172 versus the Piper PA-28-161. These two planes have been at each other’s throats for decades, locked in a battle for the hearts (and wallets) of aspiring aviators. So, which one is truly superior? Buckle up, adjust your seatbelt (or just try to find it in a Piper), and let’s settle this once and for all. High Wings vs. Low Wings: The Never-Ending Feud Cessna pilots will proudly tell you that high-wing aircraft provide better visibility of the ground, making it ideal for sightseeing, aerial photography, and confirming that the airport is still there after the instructor told you to “just fly the pattern.” The high wing also means you can board your majestic flying chariot like a dignified professional—no awkward limbo moves required. Piper pilots, on the other hand, will scoff and claim that a low-wing configuration is aerodynamically superior, gives a smoother ride, and just looks cooler. Plus, taxiing under a Cessna wing during a rainy preflight is like getting a free carport. Meanwhile, in a Piper, you’ll be crawling onto the wing like a skydiver who forgot their parachute. Yoke vs. Yoke (But One is Just Cooler) Both aircraft have yokes, but the Cessna’s is a classic “steering wheel” design, which makes you feel like a captain of industry—or at least like you’re driving a very lightweight bus. The Piper yoke, however, is shorter and often called a “ram’s horn,” because it sort of looks like something you’d mount on the wall of a Texas barbecue restaurant. While neither option is particularly space-efficient, at least Piper pilots don’t have to reach through the yoke to adjust the throttle like they’re playing an aviation-themed game of Operation. Flaps: The Real Showdown Ah, flaps—the one flight control surface that turns landing into something resembling a controlled descent rather than a mild accident. The Cessna 172 boasts manual flaps in older models (because exercise is important) and electric flaps in newer ones. They deploy like a champion, allowing pilots to achieve delightfully slow approach speeds. Meanwhile, the Piper PA-28-161 offers flaps that seem more like an afterthought. They exist, sure, but they’re manually operated via a Johnson bar that makes you feel like you’re trying to start an old-timey railroad handcart. And let’s not even talk about the first time a student discovers that Piper flaps don’t extend past 25 degrees. The look of betrayal on their face is priceless. Emergency Landing Considerations A crucial question every pilot must ask: When the engine stops (and let’s face it, it will—eventually), which aircraft gives you the best chance of walking away unscathed? The Cessna 172, with its wing positioned above your head like a guardian angel, practically begs you to glide gently to a landing in a cornfield, allowing you to step out unharmed and immediately begin crafting an over-dramatic pilot story for your next hangar chat. The Piper PA-28? Well, let’s just say you’ll have a great time skidding across the ground while being gently reminded that wings don’t bounce as well as they should. Final Verdict: Who Wins? The truth is, both planes are excellent choices for training, time-building, and general aviation fun. The Cessna 172 is like the reliable family sedan—practical, easy to fly, and an absolute workhorse. The Piper PA-28-161, on the other hand, is like a sporty coupe—sleek, slightly more refined, and just a little more exciting (or so its pilots claim). At the end of the day, it all comes down to personal preference. Whether you prefer entering your aircraft with dignity or climbing onto the wing like a mountain goat, whether you enjoy flaps that actually work or ones that are just kind of there—one thing is for sure: No matter what you fly, pilots will always find something to argue about at the hangar.

One of the great things about Chat GPT et al, is that you virtually have your own free magaizne. I was bored and asked it to write a humurous article comparing the C172 to the PA28 Warrior, and it was mildly entertaining, but pretty accurate. It's not good enought to disrupt Aussie Flying and the like, but you can make your own entertainment.

I will get some photos tomorrow, but the last of the windows finally went in today. It was the study window, which was the private chapel of the rectors who lived here. We had an original lead-framed pane, and they made two more from it, and the frame had to be curved. Bloomin expensive, but that is it. We are on the looooong home stretch of decoration and getting the garden done. Be calling in the agents soon.

Blah Blah Blah... What policies? Again, fluff but nothing else.. Just happened to prove my you're not coming up with anything.. well except that, speaking of right wing.. hasn't Trump moved to remove anyone in office that disagrees or criticises him? Who's assasinating whom when people oppose their thinking?

Oh, I have given up, asking... He's unlikely to come up with anything

What is this extreme left you speak of? The Democrats? Based on their policies and what they implemented in office, what was extreme left? What was even really left? What they put in was progressive and sustainabkle capitalism to keep the country running. You talk of extreme left, but what is the evidence you have to substantiate. The Inflation Reduction Act? Largest infrastructure development by private enterprise - hardly left wing, is it? Transitioning to renewables is not left wing. It makes good, financial sense to secure future energy efficeintly and growas the capitalist economy. Did they make all food free; all medical services free? Did they allow trans to use other sexes toilets? Did they turn the country vegan? What on eaqrth is this extreme left wing agenda you speak of, because saying it is extreme left does not make it extreme left... or does it? Noww, let's look at the more extreme right wing gvernments in place and their record of success of delviering a "balance" as you speak. When you can substantiate, I will re-engage.. Saying things are, like saying night is day, is, well, you can work it out.

Sorry.. what are you talking about? What "far left" are you talking about? Name me one far left government in power in the western world - or has been? And can you define what yoiu mean by far left, anyway? I think you mean centrist when you say far left, which means brining in the far right to move things right, well, is not equilibrium. The lesson that the Democrats should learn is that culture politics doesn't resonate as much as a message reinforcing they had better economic management policies to maintain and improve their voters' standard of living, for which they had runs on the board, and Trump's last innings was in deficit. Well into the deficit, actually. Sad to say, but it required the Democrats to perform open heart surgery on the economy to save it.. and they, unlike Trump, did it. Trump has inherited an economy far better than he left it.. let's see what he does with it./ This is clearly BS.. you live in an alternate universe where unicorns and dragons frolic. See above. I do agree with this.. the pronlem is the eight is being allowed and facilitated to move to the extreme.. Eveythign you say above this sentence flies in the face of this sentence. You have had the offer to live in the USA. I suggest you try it out.. properly.. I have... Although I love the US and it hasd a lot of great things, there are far better places to live.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.. Sorry.. have to compose myself.. Yeah - the world is quaking in its boots at Trump. So far full of hot air and backs down at the first shop of reistance.. He'll show 'em - shaking the world.. I am no fan of Albo, but if he is shaking his... then Trump is going full lather with both hands on his..

Thankfully

Look, you all know my position on Israel v Palestinians, but even for me, that is a cochamanie (however that is spelt) and totally absurd thing to come up with.. Viva Las Palestine, eh? Or maybe viva Lost Palestine. Even if he said, hold em in camps for 2 years while we rebuild and make sure no Hamas people came back or we will obliterate them all is a better option. He is either the most totally arogant sociopathic SOB, or just plain batpoop crazy.. or both.. Of course he will change his tune.. He has not raised the ire of probably the most dependeable Arabic/Islam/Muslim country, being Saudi. Why would you piss off an almost dependable ally, and a volatile one at that, if you intentionally want to get them on side for fixing the Palestinaian issue. Let me see.. if you are the Sheikh, would you not now be thingking, WTF? Even if he changes his mind, what is stopping him changing it back? And if his plan proceeds, then, yeah, he you can expect WWIII, because all of the Arab nations, plus their allies (Russia, China, etc) are sure to get in the game - too much money at stake, otherwise. Personally, I think the fella has watched too many Die Hard movies. I am getting yet another bucket of popcorm. If Bibi put him up to it, and by tomorrow some else will speak to him and he will change his mind.. Well.. what sort of piss weak leader is he.. Well, he isn't a piss weak leader because if that is the case, he isn't a leader... just a follower.

Entertaining.. definitely.. Great is up for debate (at least IMHO). His opponents will do what they did last itme.. adjust.. and get the better of him and the USA. That isn't my definition of great. Scores so far: Trudeau: 1; Trump 0

Dependas on the crash.. if it was more or less uniifrom across the board, then probably as the outstandig value of shares is usually the biggest "permanent" asset on earth -it would be very rare someone has all their money in cash. Although Berkshire Hathawa has been hoarding the stuff for a while. If it were a sector crash, such as tech, then no, but that wouldn't mean his is no longer a very wealthy fellow. And while you can look ata point in time, as long as he has no covenants requiring him to top up cash, say for some debt or margin, then he only has to hold onto those shares typically for about 6 - 12 months after a crash and he will be wealther than at the time of the crash. At the least, he owns outright the proportion of Tesla assets correlating to the proportion of shares he owns in Tesla and through any options he currently holds, even though they have not vested yet (you can guarantee their strike price is slo low, he will exercise them - f he doesn't, then Telsa is probably worthless at that time), and don't forget, SpaceX and Starlink are private companies and not traded on the stock exchange - so he owns the assets of those companies in propoption to the shares he holds in them, too. Assets includes estimated future cash flows, and importantly, estimated future profits; that is what guides a company's valuation.

Valuation and wealth deserve a topic on their own. You may not be able to transfer the value of your CTP, for example, and there are examples of many investments that cannot be transferred (some private placements, which is effectively debt offered to a select group of investors, cannot be transferred from investors unless the investor goes broke). However, the commercial value of the CTP can be transferred in two ways. Firstly, the original inderwriter may use a different underwriter and transfer the monetary value and risk to. Secondly, assuming the portfolio of insurance creates a balance sheet surplus and profit, by buying/selling the shares of that underwriter, you can transfer the benefits of the portfolio. On the topic of valuations in general, there are two sides to the market - the demand and supply side. And value is driven by both. For example, I have many times been the only one interested in a house for sale. I have put an offer in well below aasking price, but not too stupid, to get the negotiations going and have met with complete silence. The reason, unless there is a distressed sale, the item has value to the seller too, under which they are not willing to trade. All you have is, in a period of time, no market for the product. You may be surprised to know the vast majority of share trading volume is not executed on the exchange. They are effectively private negoitiations, after which, the trades are reported to the exchnage (usually real time). Banks and other instirutions have their own trading "venues"; mini exchanges - these can be dark pools or lit pools.. Consequently, on exchange, the top of the "market" (a market being an individual share or other instrument), is usually shown for some time, before there is a trade on the exchange. The top of the market is the best bid and best offer.. Often, on very liquid insturments, there is a cent between them. Valuing stock is somewhat subjective, but it is based on the future earings of the company. Also the individual stock price is meaningless; one has to look at the market capitalisation and the capital structure, as well as certain rations - IMHO one of the more important ones is the free cash flows. And the other is the net asset valuation: market capitalisation. And, even then, you have to be careful, because how are the company's assets valued - historical or current , and if current, how is that valuation arrived at. In reality, for most shares people know of, buying and selling is easy and there is a liquid market.

Yes.. Left centre - is not left.. Other organisations rate them as centre: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/deutsche-welle-media-bias Either way, in terms of bias, with centre in their rating, it does tend to mean relatively unbiased - or at least cautious in their bias. Unlike many of the sources you quote for climate change (and of which the evidence usually flys in the face of).

Maybe, but a quick search indicates it has more legs than sensationalism: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/epa-fired-email-employment-b2691315.html Of course, many news outlets do fall into the trap of echoing a single source from another outlet; this time, the NY Times, which is not known to be a rag paper.

Is it likely to have been tried before? I am not so sure, as it is usually up to a country to protect its own borders; not rely on other countries. I would wager it is more unlikely than likely that they have been asked, and a smarter administration would ask the other country to use their own border control force, because that is what they have been trained to do. The military haven't - at least in a civilian context. Even if they were asked nicely before, they weren't asked nicely by Trump; given his record they may well have responded positively if Trump asked. Instead, he just came out like a bully with all guns blazing. When Canada hit back knowing it would cost themselves, but still deal the USA a blow, my guess it was a little unexpected.. Trump and his motley crew probably through Canada and Mexico would grovel at their feet and do anything to avoid a trade war. Well, they called his bluff, and he squealed, like all bullies do. I am surprised we didn't se him suck his thumb. Why pick on Canada and Mexico. Yeah, they have a trade surplus with the US, but compared to China, it is pittance. Was it to try and let the Chinese know they were serious? Well, they aint that serious, are they.. China is chuckling now. Many economists and commentators are starting to see these tarris not as trade wars, but was ways of raising revenue to pay for the existing and planned tax cuts for the really wealthy - so the middle classes and minor rich and of course the poor, pick up the tab to funnel more money to the billionaires and the like, After all, why then threaten countries thatr they have a trade surplus with as well? You can make all sorts of excuses, but a probably isn't fact, and the facts that we do know do not support anything than him being a bully with poor judgement. He will no doubt cause short term damage to the US, and already the BRICS block is being courted by other nations to join. In addition, allies will start looking to wean themselves of the teat of the US as a result, and with that will come even smaller exports and a smaller economy as a result.