Jump to content

Mac Dude

Member Since 10 Sep 2008
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 09:39 PM

#1193628 Road Tolls

Posted by Mac Dude on Yesterday, 07:55 AM

It's bullshit. And it's the wholesalers fault.

Working for a wholesaler at the moment, and I know it's not his fault. Way less margin than you're talking about.

While I agree there shouldn't be a massive difference in the price of the same product sold in different countries (local support costs aside, if any), you need to be careful comparing the cost of manufacture to the sale price.

After a few decades in software where the development costs are high and manufacturing costs are virtually zero, you get to appreciate this :)

#1193552 What's on your mind?

Posted by Mac Dude on 21 July 2017 - 10:41 PM

More likely a poor corporate entity who've offshored to a 6 phone call centre in India to help keep that profit at $6 Billion PA rather than $5.999 Billion.

Not quite :)

Just getting some info from a heating manufacturer.

After that call I rang one of their competitors. The person who answered the phone, after about three rings, asked me what I wanted to know. After I explained my questions he took my details and said he'd call me back.

Yeah, right.

Four minutes after hanging up he called me back with the answers.


#1193542 What's on your mind?

Posted by Mac Dude on 21 July 2017 - 03:49 PM

on hold for 90 minutes so far...


#1193496 Road Tolls

Posted by Mac Dude on 20 July 2017 - 09:05 AM

If you think about our road infrastructure we are building more and more roads all the time so the overall amount we have to maintain increases and with inflation the cost of maintaining every km of pavement also increases. Both of those probably increase at a faster rate than the number of vehicles paying rego so the amount per vehicle has to go up.

Of course in reality there is no strict relationship between rego and road funding, much more would come from fuel tax.

Tolls, as previously stated, are for specific roads where the government goes into partnership with the private sector to build it. The private sector pays for it and for that privilege they get to whack a toll on it.

Research into these PPPs as these are called, indicates that in the long run the public end up paying more for the road

#1193469 Doctor Who

Posted by Mac Dude on 19 July 2017 - 09:02 AM

It should only really make a difference to Dr Who fans. She will either nail it or she wont, just like every other actor who played The Doctor. Of course the evaluation of her performance is subjective so you'll get a range of reasonable and unreasonable opinions. :)

I have high hopes because, 1) she's a proven product, and 2) there are other personnel changes behind the scenes that *may* improve the stories/direction.

I doubt very much that they chose a woman just because. It's logical - why limit the possible Doctors to only half the population? That's dumb.

#1193399 Doctor Who

Posted by Mac Dude on 17 July 2017 - 08:37 AM

I've really enjoyed the last few Doctors, with Capaldi being a highlight.  Whittaker has big shoes to fill but she has been great in Broadchurch and funny in St Trinian's. As usual a lot will depend on the chemistry between the Doctor and her companion, so it will be interesting to see who they choose and how that pans out.

While I think Whittaker is a great choice, I'm also looking forward to the 'post-Moffat' era.

All very promising.

#1192905 What's on your mind?

Posted by Mac Dude on 29 June 2017 - 02:08 PM

Pell charged.



EDIT : It seems the charges aren't about the covering up of sexual assault in the church, but are related to Pell himself.

#1192897 Opinions are like arseholes,

Posted by Mac Dude on 29 June 2017 - 07:40 AM

There were some harsh Atomicans who didn't suffer fools... so you had to know your stuff.

I wouldn't call Virt harsh :P

#1192883 [PC] Atomic World of Tanks Thread

Posted by Mac Dude on 28 June 2017 - 08:12 PM

They found my stuff



#1192880 Opinions are like arseholes,

Posted by Mac Dude on 28 June 2017 - 07:36 PM

@Master_Scythe, at first your post seems to have nothing about the OT about it

but then I realize it is the same issue


we have lost the ability to debate a topic


too often we see politicians go for cheep point scoring

too often we see we see/hear on radio/TV interviews talk over interviewees

too often we see protests shut down an opposing persons speech


the rational debate has been replaced with 'who can shout loudest'



Lost the ability to debate a topic?


When I first read that I nodded :)  Then the more I thought about it the more I began to think the opposite was true.  Way back when I was a kid(ok, way, way back) I used to love science shows.  Still do.  On occasion you'd have boffin A versus boffin B in a discussion about something important and we would all sit back and listen.


Now we get boffin A versus sleazy politician/ignorance peddler, as we see in the Q&A link provided earlier.  Anyone, yes anyone, can provide an alternative point of view on the internet and wrap it up as scientific fact.


So I actually think people are now more emboldened and will debate a topic even if it's one they are not qualified to debate.  The problem is they aren't being found out.  Many people will believe Hanson/Roberts over a climate change scientist when debating climate change for reasons stated earlier.


It sucks.


As for rational debate being shut down, you reminded me of the good old days :)


Not that long ago if you made an unsubstantiated claim in the Green Room you'd see the post count go through the roof... 

#1192808 Opinions are like arseholes,

Posted by Mac Dude on 26 June 2017 - 01:35 PM

Just to play devil's advocate again. The system for scientific research is conducted on donated funds. Government grants are usually without any interest involved, but private funds can carry an obligation to find what's being paid for.
Scientists need money like the rest of us. Need food, housing, and paying for their consumables and other interests. And then there's the human factor; Not all of us are honourable, much less these days.
All I'm saying here is that you just can't place iron clad trust in any human organization.

A couple of points :

* A scientist/researcher is only as good as his or her research or hypothesis. If the boffins are just saying anything to get food on the table then they will soon be found out. As far as I can tell there is absolutely no evidence of this. Yes, there is evidence of corruption or boffins being paid by corporations to say what they want (the tobacco industry is a great example) however these people are in the minority.
* I don't think anyone is saying to follow ANY opinion blindly. But as the OP link points out, some opinions are based on expertise while others are not, yet there are many who discount the experts and take on the opinions of the unqualified.

It gets back to not all opinions being equal.

As Cox points out to Roberts in the Q&A clip on climate change, the scientific discussion on man's impact on climate is over. There is scientific consensus. What isn't sure is the exact impact. That's to be expected given the complexity. Yet, people like Roberts prefer to hang on to the couple of scientists who say it's crap. Not because their research is better, but because it supports his entrenched PoV.
(And consensus doesn't mean 100% of scientific opinion, but the overwhelming majority of creditable opinion).

I find the explosion of uninformed alternate facts scary as it's used by some to ignore real life problems.

But as I said earlier, the points in this thread being made against scientific opinion in general are great examples of why we are in the situation we are in.

That's if you believe we are in a situation ;)

#1192799 Opinions are like arseholes,

Posted by Mac Dude on 26 June 2017 - 08:45 AM

@MacDude, your freind does have an agenda, he wants funding and a job (with the Csiro)
i'm not saying he is wrong or corupt, but there is funding if you can find links to climate change
no funding if think it is a natural cycle

If we take that to its logical conclusion then all research is tainted. Every researcher wants more funding to continue their research so they will always find an issue so that they can get more funding.

I don't buy it.

On any given topic there will be a variety of research projects and peer review so if you make up results/conclusions you'll soon be found out.

With my mate, climate change doesn't get him more funding btw. His main roll is climate research to improve modeling and forecasts so whether or not there is man made climate change doesn't impact his funding directly.

However your point stands with respect to the point I was making in the OP.

You've made a point that indicates you have a reduced opinion of scientific research. Rybags has made the point that he doesn't trust peer reviews and that people don't challenge boffins.

The problem I have with this is that it tars all scientists and researchers with the same brush and reduces the value placed on all scientific research.

#1192796 Opinions are like arseholes,

Posted by Mac Dude on 25 June 2017 - 10:54 PM

I find Neil Degrasse Tyson and Brian Cox quite absolute. More so the former

Sorry I skipped over this and it's really the crux of the matter.

These guys are very opinionated, but they are opinionated on areas they are experts in. When Pauline Hanson or Malcolm Roberts offers an opinion on climate change for example, it's from a position of a novice and that's the nub of the matter.

We ignore the experts because we think they have an agenda (any solid evidence of an agenda from these two guys?) but we accept the opinions from non-experts who we know have an agenda.

I have a friend who I've known for almost 50 years. He is a climate scientist with the CSIRO. I know and trust this dude, his only agenda is to save us from ourselves.

He is happy to,admit the science isn't 100%, but it's so damn close that it's foolish to ignore it.

But we do.

We say the scientists have an agenda, the researchers have an agenda and it's true. Some agendas are bad, some are good.

Every opinion comes from the perspective of the provider of that opinion.

But as the article in the OP suggests, all opinions aren't equal.

I'll take the opinion of my friend or Brian Cox on climate change over that of Malcolm Roberts any day of the week.

#1192790 Opinions are like arseholes,

Posted by Mac Dude on 25 June 2017 - 06:40 PM

Re things like immunization.  It's stupid to say "all immunization can cause autism".   It's almost as bad to say "no immunization can cause autism".
We put trust in scientists and researchers.  These days they've almost become sacred cows, untouchables who shouldn't be criticised and obeyed without question.
Such trust over the course of the last hundred years has given us such winners as leaded petrol and thalidamide.

If there is no evidence that immunisation causes autism why is almost as bad as saying that there is? One is a lie, one is based on our current knowledge.

We put trust in scientists and researchers.  These days they've almost become sacred cows, untouchables who shouldn't be criticised and obeyed without question.

Now that I find really interesting :) It's the polar opposite of what I stated in the OP. I'm saying scientists are now being ignored, you're saying that these days they are sacred cows.

We can't both be right :)

I think the examples put forward, anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, 'alternate fact' producers show that we are readily willing to ignore the scientific consensus. What examples would you say show that we are currently willing to follow the boffins without question?

I find Neil Degrasse Tyson and Brian Cox quite absolute. More so the former

Hanson's recent comments on autism and vaccinations I think 'trump' anything those guys have put forward, but that's subjective :)

#1192786 Opinions are like arseholes,

Posted by Mac Dude on 25 June 2017 - 06:19 PM

[quote name="SceptreCore" post="1192784" timestamp="1498378154"][quote name="eveln" post="1192781" timestamp="1498376853"]
And the assumption that the scientific community has the definitive answer in everything is the greatest hubris.[/quote]

Who is putting that assumption forward?

Sure, you'll find Trump, Hanson, anti-vaxers talk in absolutes, but I doubt you'll find creditable scientists talking that way.