Jump to content

Athiril

Atomican
  • Content Count

    3,571
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Athiril

  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. 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.
  3. Athiril

    Whats hawkeye thinking about?

    looooool I remember this
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Athiril

    Conservative Christians at it again

    They wont be happy until it's 1984.
  7. 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.
  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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_...easonable_force
  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.
  16. Athiril

    From Taipei with love

    Is that girl in the background whispering to her friend? I bet it's something really bitch. And it'll be extra bitchy because it's in Asian.
  17. If not, you have no argument to be making. Business Leonid Clueless on Carbon Tax. 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.
  18. You can repeat your bullshit all you want. You're making an awful lot of assumptions. The figures I reference are from the report I linked. Looking at any industry across the board will reveal likewise; electricity increases are going to mean fuck all to actual expense rises, and in turn to actual cost rises. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-30/carb...-prices/3923062 "Taking both the tariff changes and the carbon tax into account, the average household is expected to see a rise of $122 per year, or 7.6 per cent. " If that same figure applies to business, in your industry, that is still a 0.266% rise in expenses, or $2.2 million, revenue would need to increase by a further $2.2 million to cover, from $1.1 billion to $1.102 billion. 0.182% rise in prices across the board would achieve that. No we won't be listening to you, because you're full of shit. "I'm a business owner, you're not, therefore I am right, and the Government is wrong, and the rest of the industry is wrong wrong wrong." is not an argument, not only are you making assumptions, and assuming authority. But it is also ad-hominem. The amount of logical fallacies here is horrendous, you're also assuming, that somehow, your sole business is a good benchmark of performance of all business across Australia, and in turn how it will affect the CPI (the central point), when you cannot even show us how your business will be affected at all. Fuck off. "Government is making businesses less internationally competitive by increasing their costs and affecting their bottom lines unless jobs are shed OR the costs are passed on." ^--- This statement is saying that businesses will be less competitive UNLESS costs are past on, or cost cutting employed (cutting jobs). It is saying this by saying increased costs in businesses will cause them to be less competitive, unless costs are passed on or reduced. So you have directly said that. Worse then useless because that is misleading. A. You do not know that is solely due to the carbon tax, because it is not your cost that is rising, it is theirs. They can tell you whatever the fuck they wan't. You can roughly find out how much 4kva costs to run in Sydney, and if it appears electricity cost is going up by approximately 50%, something is wrong (like they're lying to you, or not telling you the entire story/reasons of the rise). B. 6% rise in rack unit rental is NOT equal to a 6% rise in expenses! A 6% rise in expenses is NOT equal to a 6% rise in prices! C. It is completely useless because you have not told us your current total expenses, and total current revenue pre-carbon tax. So we cannot see the % of rise in your costs from the rack unit rental, and henceforth cannot see the % rise in your prices that would be needed to simply cover that. I asked that before, and you said you do not know. You don't know your own fucking costs and revenue? This means you don't have a cashflow record, and you do not know where you cash is coming from and where it is going. That reason alone invalidates any usage of your figures. Because they are unknown and incomplete. D. Your figures are not verifiable, you can just claim any old bullshit, like retailers do when bashing online competition. Mine are, because they are not my figures, they are everyone's figures, and are published. E. Your sole business on it's own is not a valid sample or yard stick to benchmark CPI for the whole nation, get real. $X cost for A component of expenses + $Y rise in cost of A component tells us fucking nothing at all, because it doesn't tell us the total business expenses, total revenue, and hence can not tell us anything about the % rise in business expenses, and thus cannot tell us what % rise in revenue you would need to make to cover those rises and those rises alone. Because that is EXACTLY what this is about - the % rise in revenue required to meet new costs while maintaining a consistent profit figure or %. You are unwilling or unable to tell us the % rise in revenue required to meet a rise of $150 a month. I got them from here:http://www.ibisworld.com.au/industry/default.aspx?indid=555 I've read it, you have not. Learn to understand that difference. If you want to call such basic statements of fact into question (eg; questioning whether I'm lying or not). Then I will call your figures into question. Mine can be proven by anyone who can read that report. All we have to go on from you is incomplete figures that cannot be verified. It is a bit of a laugh for you to require proof of my figures, yet you refuse to provide complete figures from your side, let alone actually PROVE them. Yet you want to argue your contradictory point to these figures and what the Government has said, simply by virtue, of you being a business owner or "I have a business, therefore I am right, I do not need to provide complete data or proof. Here are some arbitrary out of context figures though, look at that 6% rise hurr durr" <-- that is your argument in a nutshell. You do not back anything up, or provide complete data. You do not provide proof, yet question mine and require proof from mine. Your tactic is to simply try and 'disprove' my side. You have no proof, no data, and NOTHING reliable for your side. You have stated here you do not have an 'accurate picture'. Therefore you cannot argue shit. Using your business as an example, you cannot argue ANY point given that statement. Money re-invested back into the business is called expenses. It is appears on the cashflow under expenses. You might have an R&D line. You might be a research heavy industry and have 100 lines for R&D. But it will be on the cashflow and it will be in expenses. Revenue - Expenses = Profit. Profit has already has this taken out of it. A growth industry may increase their expenses the following year that by a proportion of the previous years profit. 2012-2017 has a forecast of 5.7% growth for your industry.
  19. Leonid - you have stated that Government makes business less competitive UNLESS they pass on their costs or cut other costs - it is passing on costs that makes things less competitive (if the cost is actually substantial), and cuttting costs etc often makes the business less productive and in turn less competitive (negative growth), you need to get YOUR argument straight in case you simply missed the entire point there. Absorbing costs would maintain competitiveness status quo. I'm not saying they should absorb costs, I'm say you are full of fucking shit. I get my figures from industry reports for Australia, for the cloud computing industry, as a portion of revenue it is 3.5% in expenses to utilities, 7.2% rent, 8% depreciatin, 28% wages, 16.2% purchases, and 25.6% other. 11.5% profit as a portion of revenue. For 2011-2012. All industries in the sector have 1.4% in utilities cost - lower than household expenses portion. Your argument is invalid, because you do not provide data or reasoning. Only a statement. "$150" on top of $2500 is incomplete. It doesn't tell us anything at all. Becase we do not know what your current expenses and revenue are. And you are unwilling to provide those figures. If you don't know these figures what they are currently, then any point you think you have to make is only more invalid as you can't even manage your own business, and unware of your costs, and fail as a business owner. If you haven't started business yet, you still do not know the figures, and is completely pointless and meaningless. It is doubly invalid because you cannot compare anything you get from July 1, because you have stated you do not know what your figures are. How the fuck can you possibly present an argument of "this is going to affect me by X" when you don't actually have anything for a baseline comparison? The specific report I have referred to is Industry Report L7831. Don't talk to me about business 101 if you don't even know what your own fucking figures are let along an industry report. http://www.ibisworld.com.au/industry/default.aspx?indid=555
  20. Sorry I made a typo, it is late. For starters, I do not agree with the carbon tax being either a good idea, or helping reduce carbon output among other things. What I am arguing is that it isn't going to cause huge bullshit cost rises. You've already stated costs will be passed on. The Government is not making businesses less internationally competitive. The costs broadly across the industry are not going to rise by fuck all. Because utilities are sweet fuck all in the total costs for businesses. You're logic is also flawed, you say that Government makes businesses less internationally competitive, unless they cut jobs or cut costs? Both job cutting, and passing on costs makes you less competitive, that is not a solution to remain competitive. Hol-y crap. Accepting a slightly smaller amount of profit per year to the business (this doesn't affect owner wages, as drawings are taken out before profit) keeps the status quo as far as competitiveness is concerned. Regardless, the cost rises for industries concerned are small, and not going to affect competitiveness by passing them on. Secondly competitiveness isn't simply measured on direct cost of a product or service, that idea is ridiculous. Tha entire idea is retarded. Actually you do, or you need to stfu. You are stating X, providing incomplete figures that are MEANINGLESS on their own, as we cannot see what portion of real cost this is, and in turn how much prices would need to rise, you are making a statement of contradiction against what the Government has stated, and what figures show. You need to actually provide at least data to back that up with in your individual case (which wouldn't be representative of the industry). You state all this, therefore the burden of proof is on you. I've given industry figures showing what's what. Your simply word of "what's going to happen because I said so" is worthless bullshit. Utilities are 3.5% for your industry. It DOES NOT MATTER that small businesses have higher costs, this is the average across the entire industry, and that is the point, 3.5% is the entire cost for the entire god damn industry. And is what everything, as a whole, is going to experience in cost rises against that 3.5% in electricity, and this is the net effect that will be experienced by the net population. IE: Cost rises that will be felt by the majority of people. This goes for all industries everywhere. If X is 2% of the cost over the entire industry, and X is set to rise by even 50%, and industry total costs were $1bn, with $1.1bn revenue. Then total costs only rise by $10 million, or 1%. To maintain a profit margin of $100 million, we need to increase revenue by $10 million. Therefore prices across the industry would need to rise 0.91% to do that. And this rise is a portion 3.5% of costs not the whole lot, it doesn't matter that your costs may be more, because these are not your expenses, these are the datacentre's expenses. You cited $150 a month rise in electricity costs. 4kva = 3.2kw, I've see the rate for Sydney quoted as about 13c/kwh, I don't know the accuracy of that. That's about $310 a month in electriy per rack. Australia produces just under 1kg per kwh of electricity iirc. At $23 per metric tonne of CO2.. that should be $54.76 rise in electricity costs. Now you cited $150 as an electricity cost rise. I doubt that is the whole story. The actual electricity cost rise should be then 2.14% of your rack rates, not 5.67%. In any case, you do not know what your total costs are? This means you do not know where your money is going. This means you cannot possibly present any kind of point in relation to costs, when you don't bloody know what your costs are as a business owner. That 5.67% rise portion, or +6% of current rack rates, is going to be lower with all your other expenses added in. Again, you have said you do not know what your business expenses are, therefore you cannot argue how a $150/month rise is going to affect you. This $150/moth rise is simply at the discretion of a third party as well. Leonid, what you are doing is something like this: Government: X, because A, B, C. Leonid: No, X is bullshit, and completely opposite because B. B is meaningless without A and C to put it in context. External data showing B is completely out of context. Leonid: I don't know what A is. Leonid: I refuse to provide context. Leonid: I don't need to, because I am right. Leonid: And the Government is wrong. Leonid: Because I said so. Are you talking about retail? And they're supposed losses to overseas markets, where they cry about wanting lower GST thresholds (which would be bs anyway given price discrepancies), about how hard done by they are? Basically the anti-competitive whingefest by retailers? That industry is in a mature state. There is no high growth, nor should they expect it, nor should they expect the right to consumer's dollars by coercive measures. For general consumer goods, the yearly revenue $121.1 billion, profit $6.7 billion, $3.3 billion in exports. High comeptition is faced from online, yes, but the actual major factors in decided growth or shrinkage in Australian retailling are: Real household disposable income, consumer sentiment index, national unemployment rate, real GDP growth and 10-year bond rate. Though, the interesting thing about it being a mature industry is this; Revenue volatility: LOW Capital intensity: Low. Barriers to entry: Low. Regulation Level: Light. Industry Globalisation: Low. Competition Level: Medium Harvey Norman has 2.5% of consumer goods retailing market. They made $6.64 billion in sales from 2010-2011. Up 1.7% from previous year despite negative growth of industry. The real 'loss' of business is from smaller players to the big guys (The ones whinging about losing business, it's okay when they steal business though).
  21. It's not somebodies job, as you said, you will be passing the cost on. You said your racks cost $2500 per month, each right? You seem to imply having 4 of them, totalling $10k a month. And the point is, electricity is a tiny portion of expenses. Therefore to simply cover increased costs. A 6% increase of 3.5% of expenses is a 0.21% increase in expenses. Given the ratio of revenue to costs in that industry, then revenue needs to be raised by 0.19%. One could do that by raising all prices across the board by 0.19%. Of course, one could also simply raise prices by 6% and blame the carbon tax, thinking 6% here = 6% over there. This industry instead direct to consumers with the mass of the population, by the time that filters down to them indirectly through business to business to business finally to consumer, it is completely diluted. Leonid You're going to need to provide more details. The percentage of total necessary expenses this $150 a month increase represents for your business. Then we can talk business. You need to clarify some things... 4000kVa is 3200kW.. even at 13c per kWh.. that's a lot.. more than you're paying. I know you said you do not know what component of that is electricity. But what other possible resource costs could there be? It seems like you're implying that you don't own that business, and are outsourcing servers from them, in which case, neither the $2500 or $150 is the actual direct expense or actual rise of cost running these servers. But the amount they decide to charge you. However, if you are in the fortunate position of the bulk of your costs in utilities, then either you are paying far far far too much for utilites, or if you're not and this rise poses a threat to your business, or a substantial price increase, your prices are way way below market rate anyway.
  22. Athiril

    Mars One

    I'd be a setller, hell yeah (not without internet but). Internet would suck though. 3min to 22min latency time. Though a local cache, that'd send request for X resource (such as a webpage) could be received by a specialised server, that could send all resources back a couple links deep etc, or all packets of a file one after another for downloads.. might be live able. Posting on forums and chatting would suck. We need that laser teleport thingy working to send data.
  23. Electricity is 2.2% of household expenses. 3.5% for utilities (more than just elec) of expenses in the cloud computing industry (1.4% in the sector). Your business is business to business. So your electricity costs are $10,000 per month? Or, $120,000 per year? And what are your total business costs for the year? This is a logic-free thread. In Australia the ratio of revenue to to profit in Cloud Computer appears to be 1100:124.7 (just profit, business owner drawings already subtracted) Average utilities appear to be 3.5% of cost, which is higher than the 1.4% in that sector granted, but, it's not much. It appears a 6% rise in utilities would eat 1.6% of profits in that industry. Assuming they absorbed the cost.
  24. Leonid, so you're estimating your carbon foot print for said businesses at 521.7 metric tonnes per year? And that your first datacenter's power bill is currently about $20k? Excluding the backup generators. Where are you getting your figures from? Also that sounds like 100,000 litres of diesel which can't be right. Apparently you can though? The CPI is going to increase by 0.7% due to the carbon tax. Much less than income tax savings. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news...2-1226091677132 http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3773412.html Careful you might get a million dollar fine for being full of it and blaming the carbon tax. :P
×