Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Serf

About Athiril

  • Rank
  • Birthday 26/06/1985
  1. Got a Yashica EM TLR with working meter for $75, had an old roll of Tri-X Pan still in it half used. 17mm FD prime (non-canon) for $45, then a Canon AE-1 for it for $60 with 50/1.8 Toyo Omega 45D monorail camera for $100. Roll film back for the above camera, one that slides down with ground glass for focussing with the back on, had an RB back attached to it too (Free back!) for $50. Yashica SLR for $35 for the yashica lenses I got for my GH2. Brass ring Schneider Kreuznach 360mm f/5.5 with working pc sync for $150. Bunch of 120 roll Konica 3200 colour neg for $2/roll. 100ft roll of Kodak Fine Grain Positive Release film for $5. Pro Pack of 120 astia for $15, some other random things like a tv lens for my GH2 for $5. :)
  2. Athiril

    Whats hawkeye thinking about?

    looooool I remember this
  3. Athiril

    Conservative Christians at it again

    The right to hold individual values you mean, is not the right to force your individual values on everybody else. Wait, you want to throat punch a guy who is saying that children's games shouldn't be so violent, yet you were willing to give a kiddy rapist the benefit of the doubt? Not a 'kiddy rapist' until proven. So yes, willing to give that chance, accusations ruin lives, let alone the guilty till proven innocent method where "righteous murder" is approved and applauded, then called an accident and 'honest mistake' if the guy would be proven innocent after death, and the perpetrator viewed as not posing a risk to society even though he lost the plot and killed someone out of anger, bypassing the now dead's right to due process. It was simply his recount of someone else's actions by another. Which is highly questionable. People jumping on the "he's a rapist" with no evidence bandwagon are judging the guy out of their negative emotion, they have a gestalt auto completion of what happened. Traumatised toddler girl, devoted father, and dead body. Dead guy must have done something really bad to her, which traumatised the girl, the father killed him out of rage. Therefore dead guy = bad guy, and just served. That is their psychological completion, and there are numerous problems with it. There are other ways to automatically complete the puzzle without evidence too - Father which young daughter loved dearly violenty bashed someone to death in front of her, is traumatised because of it, and any wonder. Father must have had some altercation or disagreement with the guy, or perhaps caught him doing something bad. Father is the bad guy. Etc etc. Father could have also made up stuff to protect himself, since there is no one to say otherwise. Like if someone saw a knife on the ground or a table, picked it up. Nearby out of immediate sight that second is a bloody dead body. That is all a witness sees, person with knife in hand, dead body. Interprets as murder by the person holding the knife. Maybe the witness recognises the dead person as the carer of the person with the knife, who physically abused them a lot, see's it as self-defence, where the person grabbed a knife out of the kitchen trying to escape being beaten. Perhaps it was setup like this for someone to find and pick up the knife, perhaps the witness did the stabbing. Who knows. The first two assumptions are wrong as the person walked in only found the knife, even though the witness may believe they saw it happen, after seeing the person holding the knife, they complete the picture and may be unable to tell it from a memory. In this case, we have someone saying directly what they are supporting and trying to do (IE: The comparison here is someone coming out and essentially admitting their own 'guilt'). I'm also guessing you missed the irony of that statement against someone against violent games.
  4. Athiril

    Hating on the Cyclists

    I'm glad swanston st's getting closed down to car traffic, it'd be nice to do that with part of bourke st and elizabeth st too. I hate on motorists more than cyclists. I've seen motorists do far more stupid things than cyclists. Such as, cutting across tram clear way when tram is coming and driving head on into a tram in a 4WD, soccer mum thinks she's invincible with that big bar. I've nearly been run over 3 times now just for stepping off a tram, because some motorists don't want to stop behind the tram when it stops. Motorists being impatient fucktards and flooring it after a tram door closes and squeezing through a gap between a parked car on the left side of the road and in front of the tram, only just clearing the space within a split second. Tram drivers slow down for them because otherwise the fucktard motorists would cause a serious accident. The whole hate on cyclists thing is generally, motorists being impatient fucktards in general. If you don't like to share the road, don't drive. Cyclists have every right to ride two abreast (in Victoria), you're not allowed to ride more than two abreast though.
  5. Athiril

    Conservative Christians at it again

    They wont be happy until it's 1984.
  6. Athiril

    Conservative Christians at it again

    It's simple. Because they're conservative, and therefore right wing. Right wing philosophy holds that not everyone is created equal and, indeed, that there is a hierarchy within society at which they just happen to sit at the top of. Therefore, they're smarter than you, and they know what's good for you, even if you don't. Apparently R18+ games are bad for you. They're just protecting you from your stupid, lower class self. You should be thanking them for having the capacity to be able to think for you. I get what you're saying, but you're just making me put my angry face on.
  7. Christian Conservatives and friends want to impose their moral values over the top of everybody else's and have them adopted as a universal moral value, instead of you know, having the right to individual values and make your own choices. http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/game...0623-20vdr.html This just makes me rage. Rest of article is at link. I feel the urge to throat punch that guy. Here's an idea.. why don't they fuck off and let people choose according to their own moral values which differ to theirs.
  8. Athiril

    Father kills daughters abuser

    If someone makes you angry and you cant stop beating them until they are dead, I would guess that possibly makes that person a danger to society, and those around him. Traumatised girl according to report, after someone being beaten to death in front of her. Hmmmm.
  9. Thee is no reason to 'throw them out' at all. Industry data says you are full of shit. You cannot work out % of expenses $150 a month per rack equates to, you have not provided expenses. $2500 per rack a month, aren't your total operating costs. That shows us NOTHING. You say you don't know your costs. But you use this $150 a month figure to say that already your costs are going to be higher than government projections. This is total bullshit, and completely logically fallacious. If you don't know your costs, then you sir, are straight faced lying about your costs going higher than government projections, because if you don't know you don't know. You have no where provided any data for your claims at all. You have not provided anything credible. You have not provided a single shred of evidence.
  10. Athiril, try listen for a second or three. Read the next few points thoroughly. Then read them again. Then again. And then one more time. 1. My rack cost is going up by at least $150 per rack in one datacentre. I have been told this is because of electricity costs. You then tried to calculate costs of electricity in my rack. I explained to you that this is wrong because my rack is not the only electricity I pay for as the common functions of a datacentre such as the air conditioning costs, the transportation costs, the lighting costs are split among customers as well with the datacentre passing on all their costs to their clients who will pass it on to their clients and so on to the consumer. In short, your calculation of the electricity cost of a 4kVA rack was as useless as it may have been correct - because I don't pay for electricity - I pay for a rack in a secure datacentre which includes security, cleanliness, edge networking, air conditioning, lighting, land tax, etc... 2. You don't need to know my costs. THEY ARE IRRELEVANT. Let me explain why, one more time. I know that all my datacentre (and associated) costs will go up, though not by how much because I have not yet been given this information by all my providers. Trying to work out my cost increase as a percentage of my current costs is impossible before I know what all my cost increases are. Hence my current costs are irrelevant to you because you can't do anything with them except calculate an incomplete increase in my cost based on 1 out of 10 potential cost increases to my business due to the carbon tax. 3. This one was hilarious Since you love averaging businesses even when I tell you reports based on multi-national datacentre owners hardly reflect the cloud industry in Australia... lets do some maths. If 65% of a company is $6.8million then 100% of that company is $10.46million. You say it's a $1.1 billion industry, and there are 556 players in it. That means the average company should be worth $1.98 million. That makes Bluefire 5 times larger than the average player in the cloud market in Australia. I'd say that's a major player. When you take out HP, CSE and IBM (which are not cloud companies, but datacentre and services companies) out of the equation you will find that Bluefire is 10-15 times bigger than most cloud companies in Australia. You could ask Bluefire about their electricity costs in a datacentre. They wouldn't know because they also rent racks, just like I do, except since they're huge, they get much better deals. This is why your report is so flawed. Cloud companies DO NOT OWN datacentres. Hell, Amazon's grid is coming to Australia into a datacentre owned by another company. Even Amazon won't know the cost of their electricity, because just like every other company, they'll pay the cost of the rack without knowing their exact electricity share of the total delivered to the datacentre. So I repeat to you again: Cloud companies do not own datacentres as a rule. Those that do are like HP - they use cloud as another product line but they are not cloud companies. That is not their primary focus nor their primary profit. 4. Cloud companies do. Because we host other businesses, if we lose too much money by not turning profits, we endanger our clients' businesses. I know of a company from Melbourne which operated a cloud in Sydney through acquisition of a company I used to work for. When that company stopped being able to pay its bills because its owner didn't know how to run a business, the datacentre switched off power to the rack, bringing their business to a screeching halt after 3 months of no-payment warnings. My company had by then migrated all but two of the clients off that cloud. The other two were left without data, email, CRM for a week as we scrambled to fix things. Let me conclude: your report is worthless, it does not reflect the cloud industry in Australia because it references only datacentre-owning companies in Australia with respect to electricity costs. All cloud companies in Australia do not own datacentres. That is not their business. There is no Bluefire datacentre. There is no OBT datacentre. There is no Infoplex datacentre. Thus there is no possible way to know the costs of electricity that these people use because they use NextGen, Global Switch, Telstra, HP, IBM, CSE, Equinix, Optus, iSeek, Infraserve datacentres, and not one of these are cloud companies, despite what the report might have you believe. Your costs are relevant, your using them to support your argument, yet you do not release the data. Withdraw any argument based on your costs, or provide the data. You have not provided figures. $150/month increase is meaningless without knowing current total operating costs vs total current. You say $150/month minimum, therefore you will know the minimum expense % rise, and the minimum rise in revenue needed to offset that if you choose to offset it by passing on costs (and costs only). Your $150/month figure therefore does not support your argument, because your argument is that the government figures are wrong, the government figures project expense and CPI rises by %. You have not shown ANYTHING indicating a % rise. You have debunked NOTHING. The figures ARE NOT MULTINATIONAL, THEY ARE FOR BUSINESS CONDUCTED WITHIN AUSTRALIA. Your math is also WRONG. That is how much they BOUGHT 65% of the company for, NOT 65% of their annual revenue. IF allegedly, all you large companies rent racks, and these other guys (HP etc) simply rent out racks, then learn to fucking count to 3. Your costs will be based on THEIR costs. Yes the figures are not their complete financials, the figures given are for CLOUD COMPUTING, and IN AUSTRALIA ONLY. The three companies mentioned are the MAJOR players in CLOUD COMPUTING. You can't question that, because it is there in black and white. It is simple fact. These are not guesses, as you are doing. This is hard cold data, from that industry and that industry alone. "That means the average company should be worth $1.98 million" Wrong. The 3 companies mentioned as the largest have the biggest portion share, your average figure is wrong, it is also completely illogical to analyse like that. Again, the 3 mentioned are the biggest and worth hundreds of millions in cloud computing. Bluefire is not a big
  11. As a small business operator, I concur. But if he is using his own business as an example with figures, then he needs to either withdraw any argument based on that, or provide complete data to back it up.
  12. Athiril

    Father kills daughters abuser

  13. Athiril

    Father kills daughters abuser

    The murder victim was someone's son. Everyone is someone's child. But the father took action into his own hands, and bashed him to death, not merely protecting his daughter, but killing the man, even without intention it is far more than necessary for self defence of family and property.
  14. I can argue that my cost of a rack is increasing by 6% at least. And that all my other datacenter costs will go up. Can't I? That 6% doesn't support your idea that the Government's projections are wrong. Therefore stop using it if you're not going to back it up. Want to know why? BECAUSE IT DOES NOT TELL US % oF INCREASED EXPENSES, AND THE LEVEL YOU NEED TO RAISE PRICES BY TO COMPENSATE FOR THIS MINIMUM ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT AMOUNT. Therefore you can't argue shit. Shit being the shit your spewing about the Government's projections being way off, and how the CPI will be much higher. Because you have not presented anything to support that. You provide incomplete data that does NOT support your claims. You provide NO evidence for your claims. Your entire tactic resolves around discrediting opposition, because you have no PROOF. You have a pre-existing idea at which you try to clutch at kind of 'evidence' that supports it, ignoring everything else. I look at the evidence first, then arrive at an idea. If you want to talk strict accounting, I believe it appears in the balance sheet under shareholder equity as money retained in the business. I'm not an accountant - I do the IT side of things. To do R&D and retain money, whatever it's labeled as on the accounting side of things, you have to earn a profit. The lower your profit, the less you can retain in the business for R&D. This tax reduces profit unless it's passed onto the business' client base. You do not need to make a profit for R&D. Wages, purchases, etc can be included in expenses. http://www.climatespectator.com.au/comment...less-carbon-tax "In looking at the lifecycle analysis data around the carbon emissions involved in food production I can’t for the life of me work out how a pie could be going up by 8 per cent, unless cow’s methane emissions were covered by the carbon price – which they’re not. Yet I suspect this deli example is not an isolated case. A range of small businesses think that they will be heavily punished by the carbon tax and feel a sense of injustice that they won’t be receiving any free permits to compensate them." "The reality is that for the vast majority of businesses, particularly SMEs, the carbon tax will represent almost a rounding error in their operating costs. That is because energy – which is where the carbon tax will have the greatest impact – represents less than 3 per cent of input costs for most of these businesses and the carbon tax will represent an increase in energy costs of about 10 to 20 per cent. So the end result is 0.3 to 0.6 per cent." 3.5% in your industry's case, because your industry uses a fair bit more energy than others. I've bolded the important bit. That is where the greatest increase will be. Let's assume 20% rise in energy costs. That is +0.7% in expenses in your industry as a whole. Or 6.83 million. That represents a 0.62% rise in revenue needed to pass on 100% of that cost (and no more). 5% of your industry's market segmentation is to households. Dimension Data Pty Ltd has 75% shareholding in Bluefire Pty Ltd. They acquired a 65% interest in BlueFire Pty Ltd for $6.8 million. They are NOT a major player in the Cloud Computing industry in Australia. Large? Yes, they have (assumedly) millions or at least hundreds of thousands in revenue. Small fry compared to the entire industry though. (Hint $6.8 million for 65% of a company in a $1.1 billion/year industry means that company is not a major player). I am wondering what your definition of "Australian" is, because Dimension Data isn't. Regardless, it's irrelevant, the figures in that report are Australian only, and only for cloud computing. Infoplex Pty Ltd is a 100% subsidiary of Leighton Holdings Limited
  15. Leonid wants to argue CPI will be higher than Government projections because increased expenses will be more than Government projections, which causes an increase in raised prices of goods and services by more than the Government projections. He is using his own business as an example, and argues that 6% is the minimum cost. He does not show what % that 6% would be in current total expenses, and what % increase in prices he would have to charge (% rise in revenue) to cover that. He argues he doesn't have enough data yet to show increased expenses, and therefore the amount he needs to increase prices by. (Not enough data to show, yet insists Government projections are wrong? Hmmmm) There are lots of obvious problems and flaws in that argument. He's not providing the data that would support his premise. A single business isn't a yard stick to measure all businesses by. And of course, he does have enough data to show minimum expense rise, thereby being able to show minimum rise in his prices to compensate. Look at your report. Look at the companies it references. They're multi-nationals. Their costs are different to Australian cloud providers. They also do different things. Somebody cannot read. The report is SOLELY on Cloud Computing in Australia, as per the title of the report. The report doesn't cover or include other activities, ONLY cloud computing, and ONLY within Australia. The market share for AUSTRALIA, is 12% for CSC Computer Sciences Australia Holdings Pty Ltd, 20% IBM A/NZ Holdings Pty Ltd, 25% HP Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd, and 43% other (all other businesses within Australia). Each industry report's figures are ONLY for that industry, and are AUSTRALIA specific. Learn to read. No I think we will be listening to me instead of you. The rest of the industry is not wrong - they're going to be hit with higher prices as a function of the carbon tax. They've already been informed of it. The government is wrong. This much is true because businesses have already been informed of price rises on individual goods and services of 3%+. Secondly - apparently I can't show my business won't be affected. Apparently that extra $150 a month won't affect me. That's not a function of the carbon tax. LALALALAALA... *fingers in ears* Oh look fairy unicorns! You haven't provided any evidence what so ever, just your usual anecdotal bullshit. You haven't even provided actual figures. Your $2500 + $150 figures count for nothing without current expenses and current revenue. It doesn't and cannot show anything without that. You need to provide current expenses and current revenue to use them as an example. You need to provide those figures, then you need to prove those figures are real, and then you need to prove that this is actually a benchmark comparison to how the CPI will be affected. You're welcome, it's because you're lying idiot. Your statement is self-contradictory from the very beginning which is what I have been pointing out, except you claim you never said that, when you did. Your pre-carbon tax expenses and revenue are completely relevant. Do you know why? BECAUSE YOUR FUCKING FIGURES YOU PROVIDED ARE MEANINGLESS WITHOUT THEM! You claim that the Government is wrong. Cost rises will be more. CPI will be more. Your concept of this stems from you being told your costs will rise by at least $150. Without these figures to complete them, you cannot even claim your expenses will be higher than what ther Government projects. Because you have not data. With them you can show that costs will rise by at least X% due to 6% rise in proportion of Y% expenses. With Revenue, you can show that that revenue will need to rise by (100 / revenue * (revenue - expenses*x%))% to cover those costs. You also imply that your somehow, your business performance, and hence expenses will be representative of all business, because you state the Government is wrong, costs will be more, based on your own business figures. They're not your figures. They're the figures of several multi-national companies with huge budgets and amazingly large numbers of employees and a diverse range of products. IBM, HP and CSC own datacentres, not just clouds. They are not the base standard of cloud providers in Australia. Are you retarded? A. Really, then explain to me why 64% of small businesses are worried about the impact to their business? B. Why are people getting letters telling them of price increases due to the carbon tax? A. http://www.climatespectator.com.au/comment...less-carbon-tax B. Provide credible proof, and http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-of-livin...v-1226366534694 No, you're telling us a bunch of bullshit. Your problem is your claiming the Government is wrong, and the CPI will go up more than claimed, due to business costs going up more than projected. You cite your raised costs as an example. You state this a MINIMUM of your raised costs. Therefore, with CURRENT expenses and CURRENT revenue. We can see based on the provided figures what YOUR business (and not business in general!) expenses would rise by as a % MINIMUM, and what MINIMUM price rise % would be needed to cover that! If you do not wan't to provide that. DO NOT USE YOUR FUCKING FIGURES AS AN EXAMPLE OF COSTS INCREASING MORE THAN WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS PROJECTING, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SHOW THAT WITHOUT THOSE FIGURES, LET ALONE TRY TO PROVE IT. HINT: YOU COULD SHOW MINIMUM AMOUNT AS A % YOU NEED TO RISE YOUR PRICES BY ALREADY. YOU DO NOT NEED JULY 1 INFORMATION FOR THIS. And again, you're making assumptions there. Don't you get tired of using ad hominem to try and discredit an argument? You insist that everyone's costs they will pass on will be larger than the Government's projections. You cite your raised costs of a minimum of $150 per rack per month as an example. This doesn't show your passed on costs will be larger than the Government's projections, it also does not show that your increased expenses will be more than the Government's projections. It simply is a value with no context. You do not need to wait till July 1st to see these figures, because you state that it is the MINIMUM rise you will face. Your claim costs will rise by more than the Government projects. You are only stating this, you are only making a statement of contradiction. You are not providing evidence. There is a lot of evidence stacked against you. Such as: A. The bulk of cost increases from the carbon tax are going to be energy costs. B. They are going to be around 10-20% for businesses. And 7% or so for home expenses, etc. C. Utility expenses are only a few percent in any industry I've looked at so far. Given, if A, B, and C are true. Then the Government's projections look about right. You state the Government's are wrong. Which of A, B and/or C do you disagree with? Provide credible evidence. You say your cost rises are minimum X. You can clearly work out minimum expense rise %, and minimum revenue increase % to cover minimum expense rise. Show those figures, or retract your business as an example. Without that you cannot show that costs are higher than Government projections. They are not the major players in the Australian market, like it or not, the 3 companies listed in the report are THE major Australian Cloud Computing providers. The 3 companies mentioned hold 57% of the Australian cloud computing market, the remaining 43% is divided among everyone else. Everyone else's figures are included. The figures are an overall picture of the *entire* industry. The figures again, are ONLY Australian, and ONLY for cloud computing. The report is on Cloud Computing in Australia. CSC Computer Sciences Australia Holdings Pty Ltd has 12% of the Australian Cloud Computing Market share, their revenue for 2009-2010 was $4.6 billion. In 2011-2012 the ENTIRE revenue for Cloud Computing in Australia was $1.1 billion (for 2009-2010, it was more precisely $1107.1 million in revenue, for everyone, in the entire industry). The report's financial figures are ONLY for Cloud Computing and ONLY in Australia.