Jerry_Atrick

May 3.. Only seems like yesterday we had the last one Let the muck begin

Was typing in a hurry, other others' subsequent posts expounded the idea. Apart from the bit that they never learned COBOL, I find it hard to believe they couldn't work with the data. If the programming language was COBOL, chances are the data would be stored in a relational database, which, if on IBM, would likely be DB2; if on Unix/Linux, most likely be Oracle, and if on MS Windows Server, could be either Oracle or MS SQL Server. Although if on IBM, it could be Oracle, or ADABAS as well. There may be others.. has been a while since I have written COBOL. Each of these relational databases use a standard language, SQL (Structured Query Language), to access the data. It could be that they are on some Big Data repository, but again, there would be some standard interface, including butchered versions of SQL. I very much doubt they would store such data using as simple or binary files accessed directly from the language and that goes for any language - C, C++, Java, Python, C#, just to name a few of the more modern languages. The overhead of writing ones own routines to efficiently store and access the data, as well as maintained data integrity, scalability, security, guaranteed recovery, and, well general ACIDity of the data (https://www.databricks.com/glossary/acid-transactions) as well as transaction management is huge, and when you consider the data will have to be distributed and concurrently accessed by hundreds, if not thousands of users. But even if they decided to use native files and implement all of the above, learning COBOL quickly enough to run programs, get and understand the data is not hard for a seasoned programmer. In fact, once you're a tech whizz, reading any language is pretty well easy because regardless of what language you are using, they all have pretty well much the same computer science constructs (well COBOL is limited in some areas compared with the languages I mentioned above, but if you have learned any of those other languages, COBOL would be a doddle to read). Its a bit like some people who can understand some spoken languages enough, but not speak the language. And in any case, any file written by one language can be read by any other language on that platform. So, I tend to agree with this:

well criticized!

Well, it's the beginning of round 3 of the AFL season, and this is another seaosn I will be sitting out of the betting.. There are two teams I would consistently bet against, but so far, none I would consistently bet for. If I see odds that are clearly misaligned to the teams playing, I may go for a single £5 bet, but thus far, I am just going to enjoiy the game.

Police have confirmed the man who fatally fell from the roof of a nightclub was not a bouncer.

For Chump, literally a quicky, but here goes: "The only person Chump ever hired who was actually qualified to to their job was.... Stormy Daniels."

It may be true. They may have long deceased and long not being paid, since them being decease...

I don't think that is a good idea. What if the performance of the government is that bad, that removing them is the best option?

(think we had that one a couple of posts ago)

I must be a genus...

The prime minister sort of enjoys the privilege of being able to call an election to occur at any time up to a maximum of three years since either the last election, or swearing in the the parliament after the election - I can't exactly recall which. The process is the prime minister asks the governor general to dissolve parliament and authorise an election on a said date. The convention is that the GG will agree and dissolve parliament, at which point the sitting government is a caretaker government only performing admin tasks until the election; no new policy or initiatives are to be implemented. Of course, as conventions, they are not enforceable. The GG does not have to agree, and the government, as infamously done by SFM and the Lib premier of Vic signed up to oblige their successive government during this period. If the PM has not requested the GG to dissolve parliament and set an election date within the three year period, the GG will do so of his or her own accord. So, the PM mus call an election within the three year period, but has some liberty to do so beforehand. There are other ways to call an election. In theory, the GG can dissolve parliament at any time and call an election. But, generally, it can be forced politically, through double dissolutions, which is a great way for te sitting government to force an early election when the ar riding a popularoty wave but can see clounds on the horizon.. And of course, an opposition with numbers can, as well, aka 1975. The only thing I see wrong with the current set up in Aus is that it is too easy to call an early election; I think it should require something like in the UK, where 2/3 vote of parliament is required to allow an early election.

Actually, it is a serious response. Did QANTASS offer increased capacity and lower prices? Is QANTASS owned by the Government,? No conflicts of interest?

Like deny Qatar Airlines application for more slots?

Wasn't worded well; they will characterise media raising the issue as the whiny left media

And then go to the fishmonger!

I get the disdain for including a journo, and then the disdain for yet another extortion raquet. But I can't help but think this was a planned PR stunt for the voters. I would guess it is getting harder to justify some of the crap they are doing even to their supporters, so come out and show them that they have to bail out Europe again, and sow further division. The MAGA manacs will be cheering how great America is that they have to come to the aid of baby Europe.. I am sure Eruope has the means to deal with the Houtis, but the US are probably not letting them. Notice, there is no defence official? I would find it very hard to believe if it were really about making a decison, they wouldn't have a defence official in there, for someone to blame if it all goes wrong. I have changed my tune that it is reasonable that Chump didn't know about it.. this is PR gold to them. And the whiny left wing media complaining about a storm in a teacup to boot (how they will spin it).

On the first question - to be honest, I don't know too much of the detail. I doubt Priti Patel ever treated anyone fairly, however, she is a politician and in the UK, they still do not control the courts. Did the courts treat Assange fairly? I have no idea. Did they treat him in accordance with the law, which sometimes is not fair (remembering, fair is a subjective concept)? Yes. Aboslutely. Otherwise his case would have been dispensed with very quickly. In fact, theere were reports that if it was not such a high profile case, the final leave to appeal, which I think was to the Supreme court - this highest court in the land - would probably not have been granted. As I recall, the British courts temporarily refused the extradition order on the grounds that they were not convinced he would receive a fair trial. Apparenlty Sweden also dropped their request for extradition based on an alleged sexual offence, too. Re Russia being a communist country - yes - in name, and in some ways in structure - yes the factors of production were centrally owned and controlled.. sort of.. except that in today's terms, billions were funelled into Swiss bank accounts for the elite, but it was hardly governing these resources for the people. Communist Russia/USSR has always been an autocracy claiming a vel of communism. The problem is power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts... However, if they maintained a democracy with a communist constituion, maybe it would have been proper communism and worked better.

I think boith of those examples are conduct - dereliction of duty and fraudulently using taxpayers money to go on jollies. Dutton's tript to Sydney for his fundraising was on the taxpayers $, covered by some incidental duties, apparently... Bishop's helicopter flight is another I can recall.. What about perks such as Chairman's lounge membership?

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..

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..

https://www.theage.com.au/national/who-really-invented-wi-fi-and-the-problem-of-australian-science-innovation-20250325-p5lmdb.html An interesting article and it exposes something I had no idea of - that the US part funds the CSIRO! WTF? Australian pollies seriously don't have any vision for the country beyond the next election.

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.

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