Jump to content


tastywheat

Member Since 20 Nov 2009
Offline Last Active May 08 2017 01:08 AM
-----

#1191237 how crap is this government ?

Posted by tastywheat on 28 April 2017 - 12:47 PM

Speaking of ants, the current David Attenborough series had a bit about ants that had come across on some trading vessel to Christmas Island. They were playing havoc with the local crabs by spraying acid into their eyes then feasting on the blinded critters :(

 

 

I carried out a trial for the DPaW using drones to map ant super colonies on Christmas Island.  The problem species are Yellow Crazy Ants, which they think came from Indonesia or Malaysia either during or shortly after the first World War (Christmas Island was a strategically significant source of Phosphate).  For a long time, they didn't have a significant impact on the island.  Rats and cats were doing most of the environmental damage (ignoring the Phosphate mines of course).  In their natural environment, they're strongly territorial with each colony fighting for it's share of forrest floor, which is what kept them in check.  

 

In the 90s, something changed.  Suddenly, different colonies started to cooperate, and form super colonies.  This gave the super colonies a significant advantage, and soon the whole island was infested super colonies, massively increasing the total population of ants.  They're now having a significant impact on the red crabs through competition for resources, blinding sprays of acetic acid, and feeding on young crabs.  They farm such huge numbers of invasive species of aphids for their sugar rich poop, that they're causing deforestation, which is leading to other invasive weed species expanding.

 

The project involved carrying out multi-spectral surveys on the forrest canopy (RGB, NIR, LWIR), and then correlating vegetation stress to super colony locations and densities.  It was reasonably successful, and there was an intention to go back and use drones to release bio-control agents (Malaysian wasps to control aphids), but unfortunately the government cut DPaW funding, and the project was cancelled.




#1191231 This is why the world of humans is becomming a nastier place ... In my honest...

Posted by tastywheat on 28 April 2017 - 11:07 AM

Seat Guru is a good resource if you travel frequently.  One of the things they provide is seat sizes for various flights:

 

Qantas Short-haul in a 737-800 is 44cm wide, and 76cm long.

Jetstar Short-haul in an A320/321 is 45cm wide, and 74cm long.

Virgin Short-haul in a 737-700 is 43cm wide, 79cm long.

Virgin short-haul in a newer A320 is 45cm wide, 82cm long.

 

I'm 6'2", and while I definitely notice Jetstar has reduced legroom, I only notice the difference between Virgin and Qantas when the person in front of me puts their seat back.

 

EDIT: Actually JAL (Japan Air Lines) is amazing.. I try to fly with them as much as possible.

I actually can't think of a major fault for an economy ticket with JAL.....

Their planes are more like QANTAS business class. Which is STILL shit, last time I used it.

 

 

Have you flown JAL since the GFC?  Things went really, really downhill.

 

 

 

For international flights, Cathay Pacific are definitely the best in the Asia Pacific region in my opinion, though Singapore Airlines deserves an honourable mention. Thai Airlines can be good, but it depends on the aircraft and route.  By far the worst are Air Asia, followed by Jetstar (Fire in the cockpit caused an emergency landing in Guam on one flight, another time they ran out of water 3 hours into an 8 hour flight).  China Southern and China Eastern have both been terrible, but I've only flown on flights going into China where the uncivilised behaviour of other passengers cause most of the discomfort, so I'm not sure it's a fair assessment.

 

Outside of Asia Pacific, Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar (in that order) all dominate.  It's hard for other airlines to compete given that these get state sponsorship and heavily discounted fuel.




#1191110 The Buffett Rule

Posted by tastywheat on 25 April 2017 - 05:39 PM

 

"We have a finite environment—the planet. Anyone who thinks that you can have infinite growth in a finite environment is either a madman or an economist."

 

- David Attenborough

 

Economists aren't scientists (though they might employ limited scientific methods), and I'm more inclined to believe evidence based arguments.




#1191089 The Buffett Rule

Posted by tastywheat on 25 April 2017 - 08:18 AM

Leonid, not finite =! infinite. As Cybes correctly put it, a better term is undefined.

The reason is simple. We have finite amount of resources available. There's only so much matter that we can extract from Earth, and then the solar system. Once we're exhausted the Kuiper belt, and managed to implement a completely closed loop economy, we're pretty much done short of some major upheaval in our understanding of physics.

The human race may extend beyond our system (assuming we survive whatever great filter event that has prevented other species from doing so in our galaxy), but it wouldn't make much sense to link our economies given the decades long delays in communication, and the centuries or millenia long delays in trade. The new systems would start new economies, limited by their own finite availability of energy and matter. Even if we were to become a Type III civilisation, the summation of our enconomies would be constrained below infinity by the heat death of the universe.

It follows then that there is a hard limit to how much food we can produce, a hard population limit, and a hard limit to the number of goods and machines we can build. Sure, there's a lot of potential to expand in the virtual space, but eventually we'll run out of matter to build computers with. Shannon's theory of information makes this pretty clear.

The number is obviously much exponentially larger than what we currently have, but it's clearly not infinite, so it seems like an illogical argument from my perspective.


#1191014 how crap is this government ?

Posted by tastywheat on 22 April 2017 - 10:54 AM

Tony Abbot made an effort to claw back the defecit with the so-called outrageous idea to make those who could afford to, pay $7 when they went to see the doctor and copped a knife in the back as reward.


The GP co-payment plan was only set to generate $3.7 Billion over 4 years.

If the goal was to solve the 'budget emergency', he could have kept the carbon tax ($30.4 Billion over 4 years), kept the MRRT (i.e. the mining tax, projected to earn $6 Billion over 4 years), and not paid large profitable corporation $1.7 Billion to make trivial reductions to their emissions.

I concede that he was prevented from making decisions on many occasions due to a hostile senate, but this was more a reflection of his leadership and negotiation skills, than good policy being blocked to score political points.

Most of the policy that was blocked was objectively bad, with the GP co-payment being a good example. There was no consultation with the medical fraternity on how to fix the health system (which is absolutely being rorted). It was a token measure that would mostly impact the poor, disabled, and aging. Far more tax money could be saved by cracking down on specialists and super clinics who systematically abuse current policies for profit.


#1190925 how crap is this government ?

Posted by tastywheat on 18 April 2017 - 05:02 PM

And as for the predictable "infantile nationalism" retort - we've lowered our guard countless times, setting the so-called example to other countries with the likes of FTAs and in general we've been fucked over as a result.

 

Actually, the data is pretty clear that the Australian economy has benefited from skilled migration.  See the Migration Council Australia report:

 

The Economic Impact of Migration

 

xPbMbdw.png

 

 

 

The problem isn't skilled migration, it's the systematic rorting of the skills requirement that allows unskilled workers to acquire PR.




#1190750 War is brewing in Asia

Posted by tastywheat on 12 April 2017 - 07:53 PM

Mostly the present mood in Washington, a lot of people have had enough of Kim fuckwit, there will not be much mercy.

 

The US has massive interests and military assets in SK, China tends to regard NK as a necessary but expendable embarrassment.

 

I guess I'm coming at it from the other side.

 

The reaction to South Korea installing the THAAD system has been close to hysterical here in China.  The CPC shutdown a South Korean supermarket chain somehow connected with the land the THAAD system was installed on, and there was serious talk of trade sanctions (which were quietly dropped for obvious economic reasons).

 

China behaves like a petulant child when it comes to issues of sovereignty and defence, which I attribute to the '100 years of shame' caused by the opium wars and Japanese invasion.  The fact that they prefer sharing a border with a nuclear armed, unstable dictatorship, to an American ally, is valuable insight into the logic of the CPC.

 

Even if the Chinese government behaved sensibly and permitted a strike, there's a good chance it would cause the nationalistic programming of Chinese people to backfire, which would force the CPC to respond in order to maintain their authority.

 

China certainly has no respect for North Korea, but I can't imagine that they would permit any sort of rational military intervention without flipping out.




#1190744 War is brewing in Asia

Posted by tastywheat on 12 April 2017 - 04:04 PM

NK can bluster all it wants, raise the bar and they will get their ass kicked and hard and China will not do a thing to help.

 

What makes you so sure of this?

 

Obviously, a war between China and the US would be an economic disaster for both sides.  But that doesn't rule out a war by poxy to protect their interests within the Korean peninsula.


  • Xen likes this


#1190686 Adult ADD

Posted by tastywheat on 10 April 2017 - 02:06 PM

Isn't it a bit irresponsible to be taking high doses of a banned substance that's been documented to cause rhabdomyolysis (muscles cell death), among other things?  DMHA is structurally similar to DMAA, modified mostly to get around regulations, and without clinical testing that would demonstrate safety.  

 

For someone with your symptoms, particularly degenerative eyesight that presumably related to some form of muscular dystrophy, it really does seem like an unwise decision.  If you need stimulates to function, safe options are readily available from your GP.  Why gamble on your health, if you could take ownership of it, and get it properly sorted?




#1190679 Adult ADD

Posted by tastywheat on 10 April 2017 - 01:21 PM

Any idea if GP's can actually help? Or am I just going to 'get a referral' from them.

I'm out of sick leave this year; it's all booked for dental and eye surgery..... yuck. (though I'll take the eye surgery over the dental THANK YOU!)

 

A GP will be able to give a general diagnosis, but you'll likely need a psych referral for a specific diagnosis and treatment.  Assuming you don't have private health insurance with extras cover, a GP care plan will give you 10 bulk billed psych visits, so very minimal out of pocket expense.  Psych clinics typically offer a limited number of evening and weekend appointments, so you won't have to worry about it interfering with work.

 

Standard treatment for ADD is cognitive behavioural therapy via a Psychologist, with suggested lifestyle and diet changes.  If your disorder is significantly interfering with everyday functioning, you'll also get a referral to a Psychiatrist, who will generally prescribe amphetamines (dexamphetamine)  or Methylphenidate (a stimulant similar in structure to amphetamines).  A less common alternative is Atomoxetine (a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), which avoids the addiction potential of amphetamines/Methylphenidate, but comes with a raft of unpleasant side effects.

 

Good luck with it mate, I'm sorry to hear you're unwell.




#1190675 Adult ADD

Posted by tastywheat on 10 April 2017 - 12:49 PM

This resource might help narrow the diagnosis:

 

http://totallyadd.co...-not-have-adhd/

 

But really, you need to see a professional.  




#1190672 Adult ADD

Posted by tastywheat on 10 April 2017 - 12:30 PM

The thing that suggests it's not ADD from my perspective is that you mention that you have good long term memory, and that until recently had good short term memory.  ADD implies a fundamental difference in the way a brain is wired, which precludes good memory pretty much by definition.

 

The symptoms I listed were 6 of the 9 DSM-V criteria for depression.  You've identified that at least 4, maybe 5 of the symptoms are present, which typically implies a positive diagnosis.  Note that depression doesn't always present with 'depressed moods', though if this is something else you're experiencing, it further increases the likelihood of a positive diagnosis.

 

Regardless of whether it's ADD, depression, or something else, the symptoms you've acknowledged are a sure sign that you need to talk to your GP about it, and get an expert opinion.




#1190665 Adult ADD

Posted by tastywheat on 10 April 2017 - 11:38 AM

As a sanity check, have you referenced the diagnostic criteria for ADHD?

 

Using DSM-5, several of the individual's ADHD symptoms must be present prior to age 12 years, compared to 7 years as the age of onset in DSM-IV.

 

If a number of the symptoms haven't been present since childhood, and are instead something you've experienced more recently, it might be something else.

 

How well does the following describe you?

  • Markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day.
  • Significant weight loss when not dieting or weight gain (e.g., a change of more than 5% of body weight in a month), or decrease or increase in appetite nearly every day.
  • Insomnia or hypersomnia nearly every day.
  • Psychomotor agitation or retardation nearly every day (observable by others, not merely subjective feelings of restlessness or being slowed down). [i.e. you're either lethargic, or hyperactive]
  • Fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day.
  • Diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day (either by subjective account or as observed by others).



#1190656 [Another] London Terror Attack

Posted by tastywheat on 10 April 2017 - 06:19 AM

So basically, the Middle eastern countries need to get together , find a way to exist next to each other, take care of their own problems , and tell the west not to interfere?

So where are these Muslim peace makes trying to make this happen?

 

What demands do you think accompanies every terrorist attack?  Different groups have been telling us to stop interfering for quite literally the last century.

 

Regarding Muslim movements towards peace, again I assume you're actually not interested in the answer, since it contradicts your warring Muzzo thesis.  A few minutes on google would have yielded the following:

 

Malala Yousafzai, Nobel Peace Prize Winner (2013)

CUGc94PXIAEvm4m.jpg

 

Advocates for Education, particularly the education of Women.  Asks the West to send books instead of bombs and guns.

 

Tawakkol Karman, Nobel Peace Prize Winner (2011)

CUHQMU-WIAAIbYI.jpg

 

Advocate for democracy, a non-violent approach, and women's rights in Yemen.

 

Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Peace Prize Winner (2005)

el-Baradei.jpg

 

Egyptian advocate for non-proliferation, and conscientious objector to the Mubarak regime.

 

Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Prize Winner (2003)

shirin_ebadi.jpg

 

Iranian lawyer and advocate for Human Rights.

 

Manal al-Sharif

 

manal_al_sharif.jpg

 

Saudi Women's rights activist, and critic of Islamic dictatorships.

 

Dr. Hawa Abdi

Hawa-Abdi.jpg

 

Somali human rights activist who set up hospitals to treat the victims of the Somali civil war.

 

30,000 Muslims in London protesting against ISIS

CeremonieDecesHusseinLondre.jpg

 

Thousands of German Muslims protesting against Terrorism

german-muslims.jpg

 

Pakistani's protesting terrorist attacks in Syria

pakistani-muslims-protest-against-the-ro

 

Indian Muslims Protesting Against ISIS

R7VCbOO.jpg

 

Belgian Muslims protesting against the terrorist attacks

Cu1zCweWAAA0BN7.jpg

 

French Muslims protesting against ISIS

BN-ES939_0926FR_G_20140926151428.jpg

 

Indonesian Muslims protesting for Peace

7997352-3x2-940x627.jpg

 

Thai Muslims Protest for Peace

r960-bb5ebe7c6e60ecb2bc7f617f455de7ea.jp

 

Iraqi Muslims Protesting For Peace

RTXZ120-570.jpg

 

Syrian Muslims protesting for peace between Muslims and Christians

SIRIA_-_cristiani_musulmani_pace.jpg

 

Egyption Muslims demonstration in support of Christian cooperation

alg-egypt-koran-jpg.jpg

 

American Muslims protesting against ISIS

tumblr_nzzepwUhsZ1ril4sro1_1280.jpg

 

International Muslim Organisations that call for peace

http://www.muslimsforpeace.org

https://www.seedsofpeace.org

https://www.muslims4peace.org

http://salaminstitute.org

http://standforpeace.org.uk/

https://en.wikipedia...eace_Initiative

http://www.arabhra.org

http://www.batshalom.org

http://www.peres-center.org

http://www.oic-oci.org

https://www.childrenofpeace.org.uk

http://www.taayush.org

http://en.yozmim.org

https://en.wikipedia...l_organization)

https://www.handinhandk12.org

 

The Western media doesn't promote this sort of stuff, so unless you pay attention to alternative news sources, or invest time in trying to understand the problem, it's not surprising that you were not aware of the Muslim reaction to what's going on.

 

 

 

 

But getting back to the OP
Do you think these lone wolf attackers are trying to right an historic wrong
Or they using religion as an excuse to stick it to authority?

 

We have overwhelming military superiority, so I think they're retaliating for Western involvement in the Middle East in the only way they can.  As Rybags and ChrisG demonstrated earlier in this thread, the logic justifying attacks that lead to collateral damage is not unique to Muslims.  The difference is we never intentionally target civilians, where as Islamic Extremists do.




#1190534 [Another] London Terror Attack

Posted by tastywheat on 05 April 2017 - 02:33 AM

There are plenty of wars and occupations with mismatched power that didn't involve suicide bombings either. 

 

Shifting goal posts.  Your specific argument was that occupation didn't lead to 'barbaric' terrorism in non-muslim countries.  The fact that it doesn't always result in terrorism is a significant deviation from this original logic.

 

 

I think the point is that no matter what the Muslim country, there's Muslim terrorism. Which goes directly against your point.

 

So by direct extension of this logic, no matter what country Jews occupy, there's Jewish terrorism.[1][2][3][4][5]

 

Am I doing it right? [/s]

 

 

2. ISIS have not only attacked countries direcly involved in the conflict in Syria and Iraq:

https://en.wikipedia...ktobe_shootings
https://en.wikipedia...Jakarta_attacks

 
Except neither of these attacks were attributed to ISIS?  Both attacks are linked to Islam, but again, you're shifting goal posts.  I didn't claim that all Islamic terrorism is linked to direct involvement in the Middle East.  I very specifically claimed that ISIS have only carried out terrorist attacks on countries directly involved in the wars in Iraq and Syria.
 

Most countries they've fucked up don't have military in their home lands.  

 
You seem confident of this claim, but it's completely unsupported by evidence.  Iraq, Syria, Belgium, France, the US, and Germany, where the vast majority of casualties have come from, are all directly linked to military actions in Syria and Iraq.  When you say 'Most countries they've fucked up' can you at least demonstrate some intellectual integrity, and specify what countries you're referring to?
 
 

We destroyed the Nazis and their practical Master Race theology. There's no reason we couldn't do the same with Islam and it's practical Master Faith theology.

It's just going to be extremely unpleasant for all involved.

 
Can you point out a single historical example where a religion was eradicated through force, that didn't involve the mass genocide of non-combatent women and children?  If you seriously advocate this as a viable option, I think you need to show some evidence it can actually work under real world conditions.
 
 
Alternatively, how about this: You stop thread shitting unless you have evidence based, constructive input to contribute to the discussion.  Free from your token ad hominem, strawman, shifting goalposts, and ad nauseam fallacies?  If you can call out logical fallacies that I or others have made, awesome.  I encourage the commitment to intellectual rigour.  Otherwise you're straight up trolling, which unless I'm mistaken, is against the forum rules.