Jerry_Atrick

I think the correct phrase is you don't know if you met any.. I am not sure they advertise it. The generation stealing went on for decades - 60 years is in my head but I am not sure. It was prevalent in the NT and affected almost every mob. You should read up on te three stages of Aboriginal separation, prtection, and then (white/Christian) assimilation. When you realise, the very tight traditional community bonds which is stronger than the commuity bonds we had when we were kids (and families looked after families more than they do now), you realise just how harshly they have been treated - sometimes though sheer ignorance.

That is precisely the point, and the legal requirement as established in the 1600s, not now. Britain could not declare NZ terra nullius, and therefore, by international and British laew AT THE TIME (and not now), they had to accord land rights and provision for the locals laws. And often that meant that if there was an action on what were after the conquest, settled ttaditional lands, then first nations peoples law would prevail.. but only to an extent. This allows the preservation oif the original peoples' cultures as well as assimilation to the modern culture. There are limits of what a Moari coulurtcan do and the punishments or direcctions it can give; it is strictly limited to cultural issues and of course, putting to death as a punishment is not an option. It does not absolve the first nations peoples from complying with the law of the land, but it gives some cultural independence. The other thing I understand is that it is not as if there is not education and information about how a pakeha may end up in a Moari court in the areas concerned. This is what has been sytematically denied of Australian First Nations peoples for generations. While native title allows parallel rights over only certain lands, they are neither primary nor does that extend to the cultural laws and rites. Yes, with a treaty (which is not the Voice, by the ay), you may end up iwith First Nations courts to hear issues arising from any exclusive First Nations lands or where there is native title, areas which are effectively the preserve of First Nations peoples, such as, I dunno, climbing Uluru. The usual punishment will be adminishment - hardly going to make a huge dent in a non-First Nations persons lifestyle. There are some breaches of sacred ground that do attract corporal and even capital punishment, but I can't see it being allowed, in the same way it is not allowed in Moari courts. So, what is wrong with self-determination and justice? How will it threaten you or divide the community? They aren't asking for a complete divide between First Nations cultures and Westminster system. but that there is space in the Australian system to allow them to practice their cultureal lives. For what it is worth, there are some things that certain sections of First Nations society are pushing for that I think is divisive. But a) it is a small section of their communities that are pushing it, and like most groups of people who are oppressed for long periods of time, they do tend to get more and more radicalised to try and get out of it. If we approach this rationally, we may just stop some of the more way-out ideas. BTW, we already have Koori courts in Vic and NSW, and I think there are others in the other states, acknowledging the deep cultural differences require a different approach. As an example, Westminster based legal systems value expediency and consultation only with legal professionals when say making peadings; First Nations peoples rely of a process of consultation in their mob, particularly with their elders (which is sort of a misnomer) and often with their wider community. Hence, they often just plead guilty to get things over and done with ASAP so they can then consult with their community - but by then it is too late. And lets not forget the great Nrothern Territory intervention by Howard because of the alleged child abuse and padophillia/incest in the NT First Nations communities. Rather than involving the community to solve the problem, they dolled out, as Bruce calls it, tough love. So much so, that they had to suspend the Human Rights legislation to allow the laws to continue. How well did that go? Well, apparently, it went a lot worse, including even greater rates of child abise, molestation and pedophillia. At least it wasn't incest, because it was tghe government employees and contractors that were systematically involved. Way to go with that tought love, hey? The reality is that the legal processes and community cultures are very different, and the inception of British law without provision for the differences between European and Aboriginal/Torress Strait Islanders culure, traditions, and laws, especially where the whole community is involved, makes it a much more extensive system of culture and integration within their societies than anything I have seen in European/Western culture.

I can't imagine OK was anti-voice. I have been doing a course, which has touched on the impact of colonisation on Aboriginals and Torres Strait Peoples, and what the population know is the tip of the iceberg, and only then one segment of it. There is an SBS series, https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-series/first-australians, and although I have only watched a short part of it, it is an amazingly revealing documentary. I had to present how my knowledge of First Nations peoples evollved after the course. I opened is that it was not an evolutionary development of knowledge, but revolutionary. First nations peoples had it "relatively easy" with the British; Not if you know the massacres that actually happened: https://www.newcastle.edu.au/hippocampus/story/2022/massacre-map Quite frankly, some, like some of anyone could use tough love. But, IMHO, is totally inappropriate to solve the problem. Thee are serioud and fundamental shifts in thinking required, in the same way that the Robodebt royal commission compels us no not think of the vast majority of welfare recipients as dole bludgers and a little tough love is required. Remember, the settlement via the declaration of terra nullius was found to be a fiction in accordance with teh laws and community standards at the time. Apart from the settlemen of Australia therefore being technically illegal, it allowed the conquerors to ride rough shod overw First Nations people where they couldn't other populations where they declared conquest, for example the Moaries. The intergerneational impacts have been monumental. Call me woke if you like, but spend time researching the real issues and what the Voice wants to achieve, and you are likely to find there is a far more compelling case for it than against. One of the worst things about it, which will have a far bigger impact on Australia as a whole, is the success of Trumpism in Aussie politics. If it continues its success, well, welcome to life in Ausmerica.

When you think about it, the whole idea is for the wealthy end of town. These are usually financed through Project Finance; which means the bankers earn fat commissions on providing the money. The large international companies that have experience in operating nuclear facilities are likely to get the gong over local companies that have no experience, thanks to the safety concerns.. so the wealthy, most likely US operators will step in (even better because about 80% of them operate the sofware I know). The p[rofits are all but guaranteed, as they are insulated from commodities prices once built - with thge exception of course, of uranium, etc. The profits to the bankers and the corporates are all but guaranteed and will come from your pockets. Centralised pwoer generation is already a legacy technology, so it is YOU who will pay for the wealthy end of town who stand to make the most from it. Dutton and the Libs have no interest in optimising investment for the greater community.

As usual, there is more to meet the eye than headlines: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-21/keon-park-apartment-skyrail-station-balcony-concerns/104005800 So, it looks like it was more or less the original line that was elevated. Because it had to be elevated, it became close to the balconies, when I guess the apartment block ground floors were built with the noise (not inclduding the station announcements) was sourced at the ground in mind and probably had effective noise and privacy management included. The station was moved closer to the buildings, which is also the source of complaint. The plans were announced in 2020 and the government offered to purchase those who had bought before the plans announced (presumably for fair market value). Of the 30 that were offered, only 10 subscribed. I can understand this. The real gripe is not the fact it happened, so not that the trains and station are near them as the MSM are making out, but the government hasn't paid for extra sound proofing (e.g. triple-glazed windows), and tinted windowsa for privacy for the residence property It is not because the trains and station are so close, which is what the MSM is trying to portray. I personally think that the government should probably have stumped up the cash as a gesture of good will. The total impact to the budget would have been minimal and it would have negated most of the issues. Now, they have backed themselves into a corner where if they do, it will be considered a U-Turn, which governments hate for some reason, and residents complaints get louder. But, importantly, it would be a case of people who are not in the upper end of the income bracket having a massive inconvenience of invasion of privacy and noise polliution through no fault of their own, having them mitigated and a better quality of life.

... Or I sold mu soul (or sole) to him. Seriously, I am applyng day trading techniques to this - more or less. I already follow AFL, although not religioulsy. This can be deemed as research. This is the same as traders (as opposed to investors, who also do research, but not in the same way). Traders will specialise in at least an asset class (equities, FX, commodities, or fixed income) and often in markets within asset classes. Eq, they will specialise in North American Equities, Japanese Industrial Equities, Agricultural commodities, Government Denbt or European v US currencies. I specialise in AFL. People at work ask me if I will bet on the European Championships (football). No, I won't because I know nothing about them and I think to be anything other than a punter, you have to have a very good background in it. Would I bet on the BAFL (British AFL)? No, for the same reason. I am adopting a day trading approach as you can't invest in AFL games. Day trading is worried about probabilities. A day trader will worry about the probabilitiy of a price fluctuation from a previous closing price and will bet according to that. I worry about the probability of winning and bet according to that. The difference is if the price fluctates against the trade, the trader will close their position with a loss, but it will rarely be 100%. My losses are always 100% of the bet. Which comes to the overlay of Rrisk management. There are different methods. First is diversification. For me, it is basically bettoing on more than one game.. I try and bet on a minimum of 4 games, but in the bye rounds, that goes out the window. The next method is of limiting exposure to the trade. Note, I was adamant of putting £75 on Sydney before I put the bet on, but in the end, my threshold put be back to £50. The third way is hedging, which I did do for a slight cost (more on that in a bit). So, putting it together in a system means in the early days, the chances of losses are higher, but as the winnings build, you can apply risk management and some speculation with a buffer. There's nothing devilish about it. It is understanding the numbers, going eith the probabilities and managing the risks as best as one can. As in day trading there will be losses, but if you look at it over a period of time and your wins > your losses, you are doing OK. It's also about holding nerve. OK, at the amounts I am in for, there are no great losses. However. as of this week, even though my original investment was £50, I stand to lose £250. if you treat your money was what you have "earned" rather than just the original outlay, your approach remains more or less disciplined, especially risk management. Most people say, "well, I lost £50 in reality". But it is not true. If you managed to get your account to £1,000, it is yours, and you should treat any loss from that as a loss of your money. This is how firms work, too. When we set loss action trigges, they are not a loss from yesterday to today or from the amount initially invested, but a loss from "peak"; i.e. the highest amount you made on your account. That way you will exit a loss before it eats too far into profits. As I was typing this, GWS werre mounting a credible comeback. So, I put another £5 on them, this time as a speculation. It paid 46:1, so should they have won, which was looking a possibility and worth the punt. It is part of the system.. a small exposure from a safe position. I knew it was still a long shot, but the odds were worth it. As it was, Sydney managed to stop the rot enough to ensure their win. So the account at the close of this weeks betting for me is slighlyt worse at:

I AM the devil

OK..this is betting.. no time for nostalgia! 😉 Scoew in the GWS v Sydney game ( @pmccarthy - you will learn some team names by the end of this). Although Sydney look like they will romp it home, you never know. So, the in-play odds are 7.5:1, so decided to place £8 on the hedge which will cover my £50 bet, but of course, cost a £28 gain on the bet to £28. Total bet value $8 even though I know one is going to lose. A 34% return should I win £20 off the total bets (Sydney) or 3.4% sould the £2 extra come home form the hedge bet (GWS), and I have no worries. If Sydney win: Or if GWS win: Still up nicely from last week. Not intending to put another bet on this weekend.... Note, Brisbane smashed Port Adeliade in Adelaide, and their latest form has them in the frame for firm favourites for future betting (just lettign you know my thinking). Unless I bet again (and I may be tempted), that will be this week done. [Edit] I wish I waited a bit; When I put the hedge on, GWS were still looking like they may be able to turn it around. Almost immediately after, they played as if North Melbourne would be favourites against them.. So I don't see a chance of them turning it around now. As it is, the in play betting has stopped..

OK... bet 1 this weekend seems pretty safe

I agree that there is a place for Nuclear. And, despite the potential downfalls, I learned a lot about how the industry on a global and nationa/supranational basis mitigate the risks. Yes, things have gone wrong, and it would be interesting to see the ecological damage per mw/h of generation between fossil and nuclear generation - I would suspect nuclear owuld be streets ahead. I know of a plant (and the protaganist involved) that almost resulted in an accident that would have shut down the industry in the UK. The fact it didn't was testament to the safety culture and redundancy in systems and supervision built into the industry, where global organisations set the bar - WANO being just one. So, the ecological disaster thing is not what I am buying into. When I started in the industry, I was, ironically, dead against it. When I finished in the industry I was all for it.. in the right circumstances. My beef with a nuclear generation plan in Australia is not with nuclear generation itself, but with whether or not it is the most applicable for a given situation.. In the days of magnox and AGRs, it was a lot cheaper to build and run; in fact there was a time in the USA where they could almost give away the electricity provided by it and still make a profit. But, as demand increases, and the need to produce more energy form the same footprint, and therefore denser/more intense reactors, the cost has gone up significantly. Certainly, the EPRs and similar designs are expensive, unreliable, and even after coming online, often are shut down for months with technical issues that develop. New technologies may buck this trent. Light water is one; SMRs is another, but neither of these are really commercially viable, yet. A company my partner works for had partnered with another company to develop an SMR, but last I heard, they had shelved it. Rolls Royce, Seimens, and I think GE as well as no doubt some Asian manufacturers are in the race. None have been commissioned yet, although I think the 2030's is when some intend to be. Of course, we can wait for fusion reactors, which are only 10 years away.. Just in case, come back to this post in 10 years time, and that statement will be as valid then as it is today.. Personally, I would live Australia to go for nukes as I would be recruited for my partner's firm and maybe set up an office there. And I have both developed the systems (so I know the tech) and led business implementations of the systems (so I know the business) of design engineering and plant maintenance - and all the supporting functions of these. Happy daze! Bit, despite this, and probably a reason I will never be a millionaire, today, we have technology in renewables and batteries that has advanced in leaps and bounds from yesteryear. So, the options for "clean" energy are far more than they were. And it is developing. Yes, despite the cost in SA, it will come down as the induustries mature. Also, if we localise our generation (home-based or at least community based generation and storage), the electricity doesn't have as far to travel, which means losses due to resistance and inversion are kept to a minimum. Which means that you don't have to put so much into the energy generation to get the same output. I haven't got the stats, but I would imagine for solar, output efficiency will be high, whereas anything mechanical in generation (including wind) is much lower - nuclear is (or used to be) 35%. A country like Australia is at the end of the day sparesely populated, although the cities are densly populated. Large centralied generation regardless of fuel source is horribly inefficient, but where are you going to site a nuclear plant close to population. Most of Australia has a perfect climate and geogrpahy. We can scale renewables far quicker than nuclear, and the capacity through the diffeent channels - and we haven't even spoke sea wave generation yet, which lets face it, there is a vast amount of energy in the seas and oceans that surround us - although I do admit, they are both eyesores and have ecoloogical consequences as well, but it all means there is a mix of renewables that should be able to supprort our energy demand in the future, even if the country went to BEV cars only.

The last two posts are henious crimes.. that is all I can say

I've trained my dog to wake up and fart to provide an excitor windcurrent to the windmill generator. He also thinks nuclear just makes sense, which makes as much sense as the above.

Yeah, like every time you put up the evidence ususally from right wing or vested interest backed sources, and we counter with evidence from the likes of reputable agencies such as, oh, I dunno, NASA, CSIRO, and the likes. True denier stuff, if you ask me, [Edit] Moved from OME's Renno Blog

So di I.. I had a news feed that not many changes were to be made to Geelong and put the bet on before the team sheet was announced.. Selwood (Captain) and Touey are back.. Not so sure, but gut says Carlton, still, but not by quite enough. Thinking of a tenner on North...

Laid 2 bets today.. £50 each to Carlton and Sydney

Yep, it is rigged...

I didn't say it needed more water than a coal station... the fact it needs water compared to other now viable methods of generation was my point It is an argument against relatively inefficient steam generation period

Its called privatising the profits and socialising the losses.

The nationalisation v privatisation debate is really separate from whether or not we go nuclear. The government as the opportunity now to invest in government owned renewable infrastructure to transform the energy economy and although Dan Andrews promised it at the last Vic election, there really doesn't seem to be an appetite to move forward on it. What would make you think any government in Aus will move forward on it with nuclear. In fact, WA, SA, and Tas are fully government owned and only the billing is privatised in QLD. An interesting article on renationalising the rest is here: https://www.uow.edu.au/the-stand/2022/should-australian-governments-nationalise-the-electricity-sector-its-not-that-simple.php Nuclear can have a role in the energy mix, absolutely, but is it really viable for Australia? If you asked me 20 or so years ago, I would have said yes because the alternatives were either so much more polluting (fossil) or the technology not yet developed, or more accurately, matured enough for a mass scale deployment. But today the generation market is entirely different. So, for a country like the UK, that is small, has a bog population, lots of water, nuclear generation can have a case made to be a required part of the mix. Although, look up Hinkley Point C, and how that cost and time blowouts are spiralling and there is now question of whether any of the other planned sites should go ahead. Of course, nuclear tech has been progressing, too. Some of the latest light water reactors look the bees knees, adn Japan is developing some floating reactor of some sort within the building) to protect against seismic activity. Small module reactors, which I think should the come to commercial fruition, may be of benefit to the Australian system because, in theory they are "plug an play" into existing fossil fuel based plants. But the jury is out on whether that will be achievable. But, with a country so large and a relatively small population, and alternative viable sources that require a hell of a lot less investment and don't use one of the most precious resources in Australia, water, nuclear just doesn't seem appropriate. The base load requirement is a bit of a fallacy especially with a well thought out and decentralised energy generation mix. And the price guarantee (of which EDF has a similar one set at £94/mwh about 20 years ago), just means your electricity bills will be covering the cost regardless of how your electricity is generated. Old technology such as magnox were relatively quick to build as they were simpler in addition to the lower levels of regulation, They have a peak outputof about 300 mw/h per unit. Compare this to EPWs of 1600 mw/h and the technology and systems needed to drive this, and that will give you an indication of why they are a little more difficult and time consuming to build. A 300 mw/h plant these days is just not viable, an outage costs each unit £1m/day - and that was when I was in the business over 20 years ago, now. I don't know of any Chinese plant that was put together within a couple of years from conception even with their ability toi ride rough shot over environmental issues. But think about the logistics: A whole new regulatory regime needs to be developed. Yeah we can pick stuff from other countries, but we do need to ultimately develop it for out unique requiremnts Feasibility - geo/seismic/capacity/distribution/build costs/operating costs, etc against candidate sites will take a couple of years.. Can be done in parallel with the regulatory development I guess, but will ultimately be dependent on it. Skilling up the workforce - the construction and then operations staff have to be trained specifically in nuclear build and operation. You don't want newbies only so you will need to import the skilled workforce. I am not sure of the Asian market, but the European and US markets are a dwindling supply, so best of luck with that. Nuclear is not sexy nor pays that well compared to other industries Where are you going to site it? Do we want it remote with a FIFO workforce? Doubtful. But even so, be prepared for NIMBYs and of course, the environmental impact assessments which can take years and no doubt any plannign will be dragged through the courts for years. And you haven't even submitted the construction plans for regulatory scrutiny, let alone started a concrete pour yet. After the build you have as big an eyesore as any wind or solar farm. Although, I don't consider either an eyesore myself, but look at some of the ageing sites in the UK.. They are a definite eyesore and usually on pristine coastline or rivers. Also, there's this thing called security. For some reason, nuclear plants attract all sorts of nutters and wannabe terrorists. And Eco Warriors, too. I was a Temelin in the Czech Republic that had to be evacuated because of a security threat. I don't recall anything of the sort at Morwell. They aren't exactly clean, either. Like EVs a lot of the pollutants and carbon is incurred at the build stage. Yes, they are less damaging than fossil fuel stations over the loife time, but no other renewable source comes close. Hinkley Point C has approx. 18m cubic metres of concrete alone,, and the ongoing maintenance is significant and not carbon free. Unlike EVs, what happens to the spent fuel - will we do a Sellafield and have an extremely dangerous reprocessing plant? Maybe we should go into the Nuclear arms business while we are at it. To be fair, if we were to go nuclear, it is probably not an entirely bad idea (to reprocess the fuel; not develop a nuclear military capability - although there is merit in that, too). Where to the profits go? Will Australia ever develop its own systematic high tech industrial engineering capability? Licensing alone is a real pain... Unlike even a fossil fuel plant, if a nuclear operator wants to change its engineering or plant maintenance systems, it has to be licensed. This alone costs £15m/$20m which is why I would stand to gain personally should Aus take up nuclear.. There are a few in Aus who know the systems as they were implemented at a couple of fossil sites in Aus, but not many people do know it, and because it is so expensive to re-certify, it hasn't changed much in the last 20 years (I keep in touch with people in the industry still and they do ask me to do a little moonlighting here and there),

He's not too bad. I have suitable supplies of end of day bitters and ales to keep him happy

You are a gazillion miles ahead as you are doing it yourself. I have (expensive) hired help. It is odd, as I have done a bathroom before, well, ex tiling The lads made good progress today: And the vanity basin in the right colour rocked up today: Things are moving now. This bathroom should be done at the end of the week, and then it will be the derelict shower room next. Altholugh... we have had a change of plan and are now dropping the ceiling in the bathroom as well (buiilder a little non-plussed!) Meanwhile (no photos), downstairs, the cabling is done for the lights ib tge kitchen and the plasterboard/gyprick is going up for the ceiling. Hopefuilly, the ceiling will be skimmed by Friday. Then, the floors.. Although, as a Grfade 2 listed building, we don't have listed building consent to lay tiles in the middle of the floor as the consent goes to solid wood floors.. So. there may be a minor delay while we sort that out. Hopefully it will be an email saying no worries.

Plastic panelling.. £200 does the room

A border has been cut out where the builder is. I will get a photo tomorrow as he has put plywood over the top so we only trip over rather than fall through it to the ceiling below. However, more progress on the bathroom, with the marble tiles (well, platic marble effect wall panelling) going up: Apparently, the vanity unit arrives tomorrow, so hopefully, by the end of the week, the bathroom will be useable in time for them to start working on the shower room.

Blimey... Is that really what we want? Smaller than over here.: (That is a new build example in the village near us).

OK.. back to it... Here are some of the thiings that have moved. This is what is left of the old piano - couldn't have given it away, so it is now in the skip in pieces, except for what I am guessing is the back, which is a solid steel frame and bleedin heavy. Will be taking that to the tip/recycling centre separately. Here, the plaster/gyprock board went on for the ceiling: And then came off as there was a problem with the wiring for the lights: Bathroom floor has now been tiled and grout sealant applied; Bath is going in; and hopefully a new dunny soon... Some rads have been hung but not connected yet: (A few more are up, too.. but just wanted to get some in to show the style. Some are three column as well. ) Finally, the floor being cut up to where some tiles will be put as well as to redirect pipework for the two kitchen islands: Hopefully the sparky comes this eve to finish the wiring so the ceiling can go back up and get skiimmed, after which, we will be painint and doinf the floor in the kitchen next.