They should call their healthcare plan "Operation Drop Dead".
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
They should call their healthcare plan "Operation Drop Dead".
Lol headline one title, actual article another
http://mobile.news.com.au/finance/e...ur-inner-mongrel/story-e6frflo9-1227032287745
Front page headline - pack of whingers.
To be fair if you ignore the youth attacks it's... Ok...
Yes the world is definitely ending.
I can answer the lack of risk taking - it's because real estate increases in price so quickly and any downside is covered by negative gearing.
Also we have no equivalent of silicon valley and the VCs there.
http://mobile.news.com.au/finance/e...ur-inner-mongrel/story-e6frflo9-1227032287745
Front page headline - pack of whingers.
To be fair if you ignore the youth attacks it's... Ok...
Yes the world is definitely ending.
I can answer the lack of risk taking - it's because real estate increases in price so quickly and any downside is covered by negative gearing.
Also we have no equivalent of silicon valley and the VCs there.
Military fetishism.
Complaining about businesses wanting concessions and then complaining about nobody taking risks is a bit weird.
You need a strong safety net to encourage people to take risks. Businesses still won't take risks though. I suppose what you need is a system that encourages people to try business ventures and quickly get them back on their feet when most of them don't work out. But you'd also need a way of funding that that doesn't involve investors busting down doors because you've lost all their money.
I've been reading "A People's History of the United States" and man it's kind of funny, it's pretty straight-up about its influences and where it's coming from (basically minorities, labor, anyone getting trodden on it's all about them, though it doesn't shy away from mentioning where they fuck up hardcore) and I'm kind of beginning to see why conspiracy theorists believe crazy shit about the US Government; it's because the US Government is fucking crazy nuts
I mean not at a conspiracy organised level, it's more like, the environment they control and create for themselves encourages this hilariously depressing evil empire style behaviour at the micro- level which builds to this macro- level bullshit
I wonder if there's a similar history for Au
I mean not at a conspiracy organised level, it's more like, the environment they control and create for themselves encourages this hilariously depressing evil empire style behaviour at the micro- level which builds to this macro- level bullshit
I wonder if there's a similar history for Au
bobnowhere
Member
Operation Ok you're very likely not a terrorist but you're brown and you went to one of these places and this plays well with people who listen to Alan Jones.
Or:
Operation Budget, what bugdet?
Or:
Operation Budget, what bugdet?
Great book.
Yes, there is because as Karl Marx said "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." !
Also I actually since I'm in the mood to quote people. I actually really like this Alan Moore quote on that whole subject of conspiracies ""Yes, there is a conspiracy, indeed there are a great number of conspiracies, all tripping each other up ... the main thing that I learned about conspiracy theories is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in the conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy, or the grey aliens, or the twelve-foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control, the truth is far more frightening; no-one is in control, the world is rudderless."
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
I really hope someone is saving Operation Dumbo Drop for the headline if/when there's a cabinet reshuffle and Hockey loses Treasury.
Doubleplus good.
god i vaguely remembered beb shanner. mustve been one heck of a journey to try and find him again
e:
That award for Kevin Andrews doesn't need parodying. The female equivalent from the same Christian group was given to a woman promoting the anti gay laws in Uganda. You don't want to be associated with these guys, anti gay, anti abortion, even anti divorce.
Edit: I missed anti child care.
Edit: I missed anti child care.
Some people are very silly indeed:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/vi...-kennett-hurts-denis-napthine-more-than-labor
How badly do the Libs want to lose this state election?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/vi...-kennett-hurts-denis-napthine-more-than-labor
How badly do the Libs want to lose this state election?
One theory is they want the pension and far out of the public eye to avoid an ICAC like investigation.
I doubt Vic Labor will build a Victorian ICAC.
lol no
I can't imagine the benefits of keeping up (catching up) with the rest of the world in internet speed would be all that easy to quantify. The technology that we're locking ourselves out of is an unknown. If this article is right: http://theconversation.com/nbn-cost-benefit-analysis-signals-the-end-of-an-era-30909 the cost of eventually having to upgrade to FTTH wasn't considered.
Unexpected lol. The CBA prepared for Malcolm Turnbull, by friends, ex colleages of MT, and critics of FTTP has come back and supported MT's MTM...
This is as meaningless as Jason Clare's claims of "lolbias" If you can show flawed methodology, botched numbers, confounding variables or anything of the sort I'd be happy to reject this report but until someone does...it's just ad hominem.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
It also found that a completely unsubsidised roll-out delivered only to commercially viable (metro) areas as quickly and cheaply as possible would have the greatest "net benefit". Much like the commission of audit, it's a report that makes perfect sense if you assume that the government is a private business trying to capture markets and run at a profit and not, you know, the government.
That was fast.
That doesn't necessarily strike me a slam dunk debunk though. The government is looking for efficiency, which obviously can be found in the metro areas.
This report makes me feel a bit better....because we seriously have the worst infrastructure of any Anglo-American country out there any quite a few 3rd world countries too....
Unfortunately that is the predominant paradigm. Government existing to provide services that are unprofitable? Why would they do that?
Government infrastructure needs to also have a minimum accessibility level, it can't just be return on investment,. or the east coast capitals will get everything and the rest of the country will be left behind even more than it is now. That is not on, to me. If people are happy to see a two tier country, that's fine. I'm not.
Sure, it's speculation (apart from the CBA panel being stacked), but the absence of proof is not proof of absence. I say this, and have my doubts about the CBA being a fair balanced report going on the history of misinformation to just downright lies that has clouded this debate since it's inception. This report in my mind is just propaganda for MT.
When you're trying to allocate scarce resources you're going to have to prioritise based on one criteria or another.
I don't like the idea of a two tiered Australia but that's what we have. We live in SA, bafflingly the only city over a million I've ever seen without a single fucking highway. We have no good roads between cities. Our interstates are rubbish and way way too slow.
We have terrible internet, rubbish electricity that cuts out every single summer and our water is kind of rubbish too.
I can't think of a redeeming feature of our infrastructure in SA.
I don't like the idea of a two tiered Australia but that's what we have. We live in SA, bafflingly the only city over a million I've ever seen without a single fucking highway. We have no good roads between cities. Our interstates are rubbish and way way too slow.
We have terrible internet, rubbish electricity that cuts out every single summer and our water is kind of rubbish too.
I can't think of a redeeming feature of our infrastructure in SA.
The thing I am most frustrated by about the NBN in the political sphere is Labor is just giving the Coalition an easy win. Since the election there has been barely a whisper about a policy that was largely (and by some account still is) popular with the voting public. I understand the budget, health care etc is in some ways more important, but the NBN rarely gets a mention. This is fundamental infrastructure, I would argue maybe the most important piece of infrastructure for this country's future. It boggles the mind.
Edit: nevermind this golden nugget from NBNco's new FTTN video:
Edit: nevermind this golden nugget from NBNco's new FTTN video:
Such as? What economic arguments (specifically) have I argued for? I've been arguing for more localised control instead of centralisation for over 50 pages now. Policies that would allow localities to look after themselves rather than having to wait for a branch from Canberra. I'm genuinely curious to see if we merely disagree on what would create a two tiered Australia or whether you're putting words in my mouth. If its the latter than I honestly expected better from you.
I don't either. That was one reason why I was happy to see the NBN start in rural/regional areas. Rather than Sydney/Melbourne first and screw the rest of the country, which is the norm.
As far as I know, everyone has been educated on the triple bottom line. I have not read the report but my impression from the comments so far is that they focused on nothing but the economic. The fact that FTTN is dependent on Telstra's copper network automatically means that it'll provide much less social benefit than FTTP. If you manage to live far from the Telstra exchange, you basically get shit speeds, shit reliability, and the pleasure of calling your ISP every week to adjust your SNR Margin. This is a reality anywhere that isn't serviced by FTTP.
And yes, the bias thing is definitely there. Yeah you can't PROVE it but don't be obtuse come on. Reminder: Malcolm Turnbull personally recommended Ziggy Switkowski to be NBN Co's CEO. This is a man who not only has direct connections with Telstra but did so damn poorly as CEO that Telstra's share price halved.
It could very well be there. Question #1 if another team started with the same parameters and assumptions and went through the same methodology.. Would the same result be found? If yes, (Question #2) is there an issue with the parameters & assumptions? This sort of analysis shouldn't be too difficult for other experts and I'm going to await their comments/anaylsis but until then...
In addition to my comment above, the chair of the report recognises that the bandwidth may be insufficient in the future, but the report did not cover this scenario at all.
The lack of a comparison between FTTP and MTM+required future upgrade is a gaping hole in the report and is a clear bias toward the politically expedient outcome.
The lack of a comparison between FTTP and MTM+required future upgrade is a gaping hole in the report and is a clear bias toward the politically expedient outcome.
That's a pretty gaping hole.
Yeah.
Whilst I had no data, I thought it seemed obvious that laying fibre all at once rather than to the node now and then the rest 10-15 years down the road would be cheaper.
I took a quick look at how they determined FTTN speeds, mores specioffically how they dealt with households far from the exchange. The values they based the calculations on are these:
Fantastic, so there's absolutely no way to cross-check the calculations. In Table C.2, they claim 50 Mbps for premises 500m (yes really) from the node. Elsewhere in the paper, they claim "mostly 20-50 Mbps" and not much more.
They correctly identify that consumers think reliable internet is the top priority. A quick skim through the document seems to tell me that they don't really go explore that priority further when they really should have. Especially when the main problem with Australia's internet is that Telstra's copper network sucks and that being far from the exchange nets you slow unreliable internet. Correct me if if I've missed a whole section in the paper since I've been reading this off my phone.
Fantastic, so there's absolutely no way to cross-check the calculations. In Table C.2, they claim 50 Mbps for premises 500m (yes really) from the node. Elsewhere in the paper, they claim "mostly 20-50 Mbps" and not much more.
They correctly identify that consumers think reliable internet is the top priority. A quick skim through the document seems to tell me that they don't really go explore that priority further when they really should have. Especially when the main problem with Australia's internet is that Telstra's copper network sucks and that being far from the exchange nets you slow unreliable internet. Correct me if if I've missed a whole section in the paper since I've been reading this off my phone.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked