Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nilsen on November 24, 2007, 01:18:26 PM
-
Kevin Rudd wins over John Howards and will make a left turn towards peace and the enviroment :)
-
A debatable argument.
-
More like condolences I say.
http://origin.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7547817?nclick_check=1
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
A debatable argument.
All arguments are debatable :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
More like condolences I say.
http://origin.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7547817?nclick_check=1
Link's not working for me.
Only left turn I like is when I'm behind the wheel. Other than that, good luck Aussies! :D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Kevin Rudd wins over John Howards and will make a left turn towards peace and the enviroment :)
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Its a Ruddslide! (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22814923-601,00.html)
Its an amazing victory, but not an unforseen one. For a good 10-11 months Kevin Rudd has been leading the polls against the Liberal govt, and been clearly the prefered prime minister compared to John Howard.
He ran on a clear platform of addressing reversing the awful industrial relations reforms of the Liberals, Climate Change and signing Kyoto - (when Howard was the only other western leader who refused too apart from his best mate George W), further investment in Education and infrastructure, maintaining the status quo of the economy, and a withdrawal of all combat forces from Iraq.
Its amazing because there a real sense the Liberals could've got through on their handling on the economy alone. Australia has an excellent economy for a number of years, but the Liberals made fundamental mistakes in ignoring concerns about Climate Change, and the "americanisation" of work place reforms which has produced a sizable backlash especially in the eastern states.
The backlash also extended to Howard's own seat where he's been defeated in an electorate he's held for 33 years, only the second sitting Prime Minister to lose their seat in 100 years
Rudd Claims Victory (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/11/24/1195753362801.html)
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Its a Ruddslide! (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22814923-601,00.html)
"americanisation" of work place reforms which has produced a sizable backlash especially in the eastern states.
Tronsky
Whats that about?
-
Well the workplace "reforms" were the death blow to the Liberal party.
For around 200 years, Australian workers have enjoyed the security of overtime payments, loadings to offset the amount of tax taken from lump sum holiday payments, unreasonable working conditions and laws against unfar dismissals.
The Liberal/National Party Coalition decided that we would all be better off if employers could put us on "take it or leave it" agreements and modified the unfair dismissal laws such that any employer could terminate any employee due to "operation reasons" and not be held accountable.
This led to a swathe of workers being laid off, only to have their jobs offered back or readvertised at sometimes HALF of their previous salaries. This in turn led to a crisis among low income earners who were suddenly faced with significantly reduced household incomes and a lot of them lost their homes.
People who previously were paid extra to work weekends rather than spend that time with their families lost that benefit. Others found their rosters changed so they either had to fork out expensive childcare fees or find people to look after their children or face losing their jobs.
It is my firm belief that if the Coalition had not brought forth these "reforms" they would still be in power today.
-
I got as far as "plan on signing Kyoto Treaty" and laughed. Loudly.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I got as far as "plan on signing Kyoto Treaty" and laughed. Loudly.
Yes that's funny.
My Mom said she voted for Liberals on national elections and Labor on local. She said Labor is doing quite good there in Brisbane area.
OTOH last time she voted here back in 2003 she voted for "Women of Russia"...
Question for Aussies: do you think it will influence Russo-Australian "nuclear" agreements?
Do they mean that "environment" is no nuclear power for you guys?
-
Yes, there will be no nuclear power in Australias' future.
-
Originally posted by SD67
Yes, there will be no nuclear power in Australias' future.
Don't they understand that nuclear power is ecologically better then coal/gas/oil?...
OTOH it means that Russian contracts on uranium are not in danger.
Interesting impression from seeing Howard on Australian TV: he was speaking about Iraq, all this silly blah-blah about "building democracy" and "freedom", and all his intonations were showing something like "Well, mates, I know you know I lie, but I simply have to lie and you all know why!"...
-
Nuclear power is initially ecologically safer and yes, it is way cheaper but don't be thinking that anyone will be paying any less for power though. All those savings will go right into the pockets of the energy companies.
While there are fewer emissions from Nuclear power plants, the ongoing problem of what to do with tonnes of concentrated highly toxic radioactive waste will be keping us occupied for a few thousand years to come.
I'd not be too hasty hoping on Aussie Uranium. The green lobbyists are pretty vocal with regard to Nuclear exports, and the Labour Government has a good history of lending an ear to the Greens.
-
Boroda, it doesn't matter. Nuclear power SOUNDS scary.
SD67, if the money for the nuclear power will only go to lining the executive's pockets, why don't you become an executive yourself and fill your pockets? Your jealousy of people who are far more talented then you is very apparent.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Whats that about?
Casual workforce - basically lots of minimum wage jobs, no paid leave, public holidays etc
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Boroda, it doesn't matter. Nuclear power SOUNDS scary.
SD67, if the money for the nuclear power will only go to lining the executive's pockets, why don't you become an executive yourself and fill your pockets? Your jealousy of people who are far more talented then you is very apparent.
I'd almost think you were taking the piss, if you weren't so stupidly serious...I'd try to explain Australian ideals and the idea of a fair go...but I'm pretty sure it'd be lost on you
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by SD67
Nuclear power is initially ecologically safer and yes, it is way cheaper but don't be thinking that anyone will be paying any less for power though. All those savings will go right into the pockets of the energy companies.
While there are fewer emissions from Nuclear power plants, the ongoing problem of what to do with tonnes of concentrated highly toxic radioactive waste will be keping us occupied for a few thousand years to come.
I'd not be too hasty hoping on Aussie Uranium. The green lobbyists are pretty vocal with regard to Nuclear exports, and the Labour Government has a good history of lending an ear to the Greens.
SD, from what you've described, there is alot of similarity in business' practices between the U.S. and Australia-We've had our own fair share of Corporate graft and corruption to last a lifetime (You may have heard of companies like Enron.)
However, I believe that Nuclear power can't be completely discounted. As a matter of fact, with increasingly more expensive and hard-to-get fossil fuel resources, I would wager that Nuclear power will become more accepted, even in "green" states. Radioactive waste is a big problem, but it can actually be controlled in a safe manner, unlike , say, Smoke out of the stack of a coal-burning power plant. I just believe it will take some time, is all.
-
2 more left turns and he'll be on the right track.
-
Frode,
I'm inclined to agree.
It is just a matter of time until Nuclear power become accepted as a viable option, however with the growing efficiency and affordability of solar alternatives we may end up getting Gov't subsidies for solar installations. One thing we have no shortage of is sunlight :)
Laser,
Jealousy is not the issue I can assure you, I have more than my fair share of "talent". What I find distasteful is the way corporates are more than happy to increase an already grossly distended profit margin at the expense of those less fortunate. Thankfully, I'm not one of the less fortunate, well not in my opinion anyway but that fact still does not exclude me from the rest of the human race, as many other "talented" people seem to think they are.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Its an amazing victory, but not an unforseen one. For a good 10-11 months Kevin Rudd has been leading the polls against the Liberal govt, and been clearly the prefered prime minister compared to John Howard.
welcome to the collective ;)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Boroda, it doesn't matter. Nuclear power SOUNDS scary.
Yep, Chernobyl still IS scary. Forest mushrooms and lake fish still carry a heavy dose of radiation thanks to our Russian friends little safety test.
-
Imo MODERN nuclear plants are alot better than coal burning plants so i think the future may be nuclear perhaps based on Thorium fuel. There should be strict design criteria and an international org that can certify and inspect all plants and make sure they are run and maintained at a very high level of safety.
-
France has 59 nuclear reactors with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying 78% of the total generated there. Over the last decade France has exported 60-70 billion kWh net each year and EdF expects exports to continue at 65-70 TWh/yr.
In 1974 the French government decided to expand rapidly the country's nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in the context of France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimising imports and achieving greater energy security.
As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro.
-
so how can that be? wouldn't the greedy power companies in france just charge more?
How many nuclear meltdowns has france had? what do they do with all the waste that is impossible to get rid of?
It can't be good.. cheap and clean power hurts everyone.
lazs
-
no lazs,
I didn't say they'd charge more, I just said I'd not be expecting much in the way of price cuts.
Lets Face it, on the whole once you've got people used to paying a certain amount for services would you suddenly come out and say; "Hey, we've got this new way of doing things so now you'll only need to pay half of what you were before"?
It would take many years and at least one ACCC enquiry before prices will shift.
-
The most expencive power source sets the price when there is a shortage so it does not matter if nuclear is cheap. Atm coal and oil prices are high so they set the standard for electricity prices.
-
They should just launch all the nuke waste into outbound space flights designed to exit our solar system in a dozen years or so. That way they can't possibly be a problem and if any alien lifeforms come across the waste trail we spew out into the universe then they would automatically leave us alone instead of coming here to abduct and rape us.
:noid :O :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The most expencive power source sets the price when there is a shortage so it does not matter if nuclear is cheap. Atm coal and oil prices are high so they set the standard for electricity prices.
Not including the costs of starting an accelerated nuclear power program from scratch
Tronsky
-
It seems a lot of people do not realise that there has been an operational nuclear reactor in Sydney for very nearly fifty years.
Lucas Heights reactor went critical in January 1958.
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
Lucas Heights reactor went critical in January 1958.
that explains kings cross :D
-
I visited the site once when I was studying Electrical Engineering it was an informative visit..
-
Originally posted by Excel1
that explains kings cross :D
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
It seems a lot of people do not realise that there has been an operational nuclear reactor in Sydney for very nearly fifty years.
Lucas Heights reactor went critical in January 1958.
Yeah I drive past it when I visit my brother...I love how they renamed the suburb to take away the stigma of the research reactor
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Yeah I drive past it when I visit my brother...I love how they renamed the suburb to take away the stigma of the research reactor
As I said before - I can see a small research reactor from my window at work, it's across the fence in Physical Problems Institute. It was shut down maybe 20 years ago, but it's still there. It's at Kosygin street 2, 500m from Gagarin square, now it's almost center of Moscow. We had like 16 reactors in Moscow, now they are trying to withdraw Kurchatov's institute from the city, but several reactors will remain here anyway.
Tronski, I thought you were from Canada?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Imo MODERN nuclear plants are alot better than coal burning plants so i think the future may be nuclear perhaps based on Thorium fuel. There should be strict design criteria and an international org that can certify and inspect all plants and make sure they are run and maintained at a very high level of safety.
I agree....and yet ANOTHER valid reason that buttmonkies like Iran should never get one.
"Achmed....what is THIS button for?".......(mushroom cloud)"
68ROX
-
N.C. State has a small research reactor right in the middle of campus. Pretty cool actually.
What happens if the rocket carrying all the waste to space fails and dumps it all over somewhere? that isn't worth the risk me thinks.
-
Originally posted by 68ROX
I agree....and yet ANOTHER valid reason that buttmonkies like Iran should never get one.
"Achmed....what is THIS button for?".......(mushroom cloud)"
What if this Iranians think the same about Americans or Russians?
Americans laughed when in 1947 Molotov said that there is no such thing as a "secret of an Atomic Bomb". Don't underestimate your opponent. Iran is advancing quite fast and building a modern society, they are not prehistoric savages from "300 Spartans".