Jump to content
Forum upgrade is live! Read more... ×

dumbmonkey

Atomican
  • Content count

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Serf

About dumbmonkey

  • Rank
    Journeyman
  • Birthday 01/06/1979
  1. What do you surmise from that? That having the flu shot increases your chances of getting the flu. How would it do that? How would I know? I'm just observing action/reaction but if they're injecting some part of the flu virus into you then maybe for some people that gives them flu and for others it doesn't, luck of the draw maybe? Logic fail... Really, if they require flu shots then it is likely that she works in a flu prone job. The 'best guess' jab doesn't cover everything and doen't work all the time, they probably get some strain of the flu not covered. At a guess I would say that if they didn't have the vaccine the rate of flu infections would go up, not down.
  2. dumbmonkey

    Nuclear Energy Safety, Atheists & Acts of God

    Haven't read the thread, but I will attempt to answer your question. Boring intro bit DELETE... Question not aimed at me, DELETE and on to the next one... Ignore and DELETE first part, non-relevant as not part of the question... Ahh finally a question! As an atheist, I can not speculate what any other atheist believes, but the science fiction-esque hypothetical situation you describe is interesting, so here is what I think. So something like a time machine, when the massive indecent occurs, gets out of control, causing perhaps a black hole, and not a small one hey? This would not be an acceptable failure in my opinion, unless the planet was evacuated of life and the loss of its mass was deemed acceptable (not too far fetched if we are talking about science fiction and such things). Yes this does give pause for deeper reflection, that perhaps future humans or our evolutionary successors may have to deal with such powerful technologies, we can hope that they embrace open societies that have enough communal intelligence to solve all the surrounding problems (social and technical) before they get to the point of being able to use such things. OK, OK, I jest... But seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay http://iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushimafull.html I understand the need to put emotional language into the question, but you are confusing terms usually associated with space time and quantum physics, and using them to try to describe nuclear physics. Also atheism. If you want a self proclaimed atheist to answer your questions, then let them define what they are and what they believe. If they do and you think they should fit into the theist column, then and only then do you have something to argue. Theist or atheist is a true dichotomy. Lets not forget that there are atheistic religions (Buddhism), and that being an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist is the equivalent dichotomy for agnostics. Though I am willing to concede that due to cognitive dissidence that a person can be both. To answer your real questions. I don't think that being an atheist has any bearing on how I feel about the accident, from the point of view that the facility was not capable to withstand what happened without leaking radiation (weather it was designed to or not is moot in light of your question). I don't think we should just shrug and just move on, we should strive to make things better and safer, for example Japan would be in real trouble if the nuclear plant failed as bad as the hydro plant did. But thanks to good engineering, planning and recovery effort, no deaths yet, lets hope it stays that way. Do I think we should stop developing nuclear based power plants, no. Do I think we should decommission existing plants, yes if they are not in good shape (and replacing them with either better nuclear tech or equivalent). As to your second question as an atheist I don't believe that the accident at the ThankFukushima nuclear facility was an "act of god" (Note: this is different from saying that I believe it was not an "act of god", and not just in a semantic way). Also to those saying it was an "act of god" as a way of actually saying "those people that are foreign to us will be punished by our god" are despicable nutjobs.
  3. dumbmonkey

    Whats your oldest piece of (in use) tech?

    My Grandfathers old Colex ESR 30, an electronic calculator from the mid 70's I believe. It's a good size, nice buttons and about the funkiest, old school display that I own. He used it for engineering naval ship engines, now it figures out encryption and security for banking systems.
  4. dumbmonkey

    NBN Business Plan released

    When papers on the subject refer to 'terahertz radiation' they are talking about this band because it has no other name. Higher frequencies have their own assigned bands, which are used instead of the 'terahertz radiation' moniker. What about sub-millimeter or EHF? Parroting rough generalizations does not justify this terrible wrong! The frequencies that Leonid is describing do not even reach 10^12 Hz. THz therefor is a common misnomer, even amongst sources of high standing such as Leonid, yourself, wikipedia, and that one journalistic article you provided. In turn here is a letter that discusses THz, from a different type of source: And yeah, it was the first hit in google, probably not all that relevant, blah blah, but if we are talking about source reputation... But hey, I know I am pedantic about the use of basic technical terms, and so OT this post (and frankly most of the posts in this thread) should possibly be deleted, but if a guy cant get his geek on about the misuse of the term terahertz on this forum, where have we left to turn?
  5. dumbmonkey

    NBN Business Plan released

    THz is quite specifically not IR. It overlaps with a small portion of IR and covers the space between microwave and IR on the EM spectrum. Otherwise it would be called IR. Well I guess that depends on your definition of "quite specifically". If you say THz and mean 10^12Hz, then you are talking about the entire infrared, visible and some UV (though not quite ionizing), and frankly nothing else. Microwave is about 1 to 100 GHz, laughably not even close to half a THz! Or if you take the common use bastardization of high-ish Gigahertz to barely touching Terahertz (I think they count to about 2 or 3 THz), then I have no more to say to you kind sir than PPPFFFFTTTTTTTTT! You might as well call them T-rays! Oh the humanity! Realistically your arguments are right on the money though (even if we can agree to disagree on the use of the terminology, and yes I disagree with this 'common usage' malarky), EHF is pushing it about as far as it can go practically, and even then you will have some hippy's up in arms (p.s. don't tell them that mobile phones, WiFi and Bluetooth are all sending microwaves though their brains). Yours, still groveling to our Supreme psychedelic infrared lighthouse overlords, DM
  6. dumbmonkey

    NBN Business Plan released

    No it's not. Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation. THz electromagnetic radiation pretty much only covers infrared, at the shorter wavelengths this can fuck up some animals (mainly some rare snakes and mosquitoes so WGAF). But its penetration is pretty crappy... You don't get ionizing radiation until you get above the visible wavelengths.
  7. dumbmonkey

    NBN Business Plan released

    I for one welcome our new giant, infrared, disco, lighthouse overlords.
  8. "If my daughter had dressed as Batman, no one would have thought twice about it. No one."
  9. That is an awesome explanation of how magnets work. Worst robzy joke ever...
  10. dumbmonkey

    Just a hypothetical situation.

    What? The butterfly effect is just an example of chaos theory, which postulates that a chaotic system is determinate (just that it can have a wildly varying outcome based on minor changes in input), so how can free will or the absence thereof have any effect or be raised as an objection? As to if we as humans have free will? I'm not convinced that we don't have free will, see other peoples remarks regarding quantum physics, and even if we only have the illusion of free will we cannot tell the difference so meh...
  11. dumbmonkey

    Kristy Fraser-Kirk

    Yeah I agree that the misconduct doesn't justify the figure (or any sort of punitive damages against DJ), but, and this is my only point, that if a punitive claim was to be made against a company like DJ, with the goal of smacking the directors, it would have to be a figure of around this amount.
  12. dumbmonkey

    Kristy Fraser-Kirk

    This. My friend works for them and he certainly doesn't! On a more serious note, a few points: 1. The case would not have gone before a jury. In NSW, you only have jury trials for criminal offences and defamation suits. This was heard in the Federal Court so it would have been heard by a judge alone. 2. The $37 million figure was ridiculous; I wouldn't be surprised if the judge thought it was bordering on contemptuous. Pretty much every employment lawyer I've spoken with about the case agreed that it was a ridiculous claim. Even rape victims - who suffer far more emotional damage than what Fraser-Kirk appears to be suffering - do not get that much. If the case proceeded further and she won, then she'd probably have received less than what she received now. The most I remember being awarded for a sexual harassment case is around $200,000. Judges in Australia simply aren't as profligate with damages awards as they are in America. I have a question for you hlass - the courts in the US award multi-million figures all the time. Has this reduced the incidence of sexual harassment? Or has it merely resulted in a litigious culture where more sexual harassment claims come before the courts all the time? There are perfectly sound justifications for being conservative with damages awards. High awards result in higher insurance premiums and open the floodgates for baseless legal claims. When a case is in the news where somebody gets $100 million, immediately everybody wants to sue. The principle of damages is compensation. Damages should reflect the harm actually suffered. $37 million does not reflect the gravity of the wrong or the harm suffered by Fraser-Kirk. I don't think that anyone who knows anything about this area of law seriously thought she'd be able to get that much. 3. In our system of litigation, the loser pays the winner's party-party costs. These are the costs that are reasonably necessary to achieve justice; usually they're about 60% of the total costs incurred by the winning party. If Fraser-Kirk lost, she'd have to pay DJ's costs. These would have been considerable given the complexity of the case. Furthermore, if you unreasonably refuse a reasonable offer of settlement, proceed to trial and lose or get a less favourable outcome, then the other party may apply from indemnity costs from the date of the offer. Indemnity costs are close to 100% of the party's costs. Thus, there are strong incentives to settle. DJs previously offered Fraser-Kirk a settlement. This settlement sum, as I understand it, was rather generous. If the case went to trial and Fraser-Kirk lost or got awarded less, there's a possibility she would have had to pay all of DJ's legal costs in the matter. Thus, it's unsurprising that she settled. 4. No court has decided on whether McInnes was actually guilty of sexual harassment. A settlement is not an admission of liability. This result does not mean that McInnes is guilty. By the same token, it does not mean that Fraser-Kirk was a liar. The facts simply have been buried and shall not be discussed by either party. Often, parties settle not because they think that they actually committed the wrong, but because they just want the issue to go away. It's unreasonable to speculate on what actually happened since we weren't there. All that is certain is that both parties balanced the competing considerations and decided not to proceed with this claim. $37 mil was for punitive damages, not compensation, DJ's can afford it, and for a company that retails so heavily to women its not that high a figure... Come on law dude! Sexual harassment cases do quite often pay out over a million bucks, but usually involve some money to keep it out of the public eye, not that in this case the amount was not high, but just saying... IANAL but listened to Moira Rayner (a lawyer, consultant to business on workplace behavior and former equal opportunity commissioner in Victoria) on the radio this morning explain a lot about this case in good detail. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stori...010/3041231.htm Punitive damages are meant to be punitive. However, they must still reflect the gravity of the misconduct. That's the point I was making. Are you saying that McInnes's alleged conduct was more deplorable than that of a rapist? You failed to point out that these million-dollar cases are out-of-court settlements. Moira Rayner makes the point herself that the multi-million dollar cases weren't reported because they were settled out of court. Moira refers to a reported case where about $480,000 was awarded. This was a compensatory award meant to compensate the victim for psychological harm; it was not a punitive damages award. A quick look at the legal databases reveals that there hasn't been a multi-million dollar sexual harassment case where that amount was actually awarded by the court. Indeed, there is a lot of authority to suggest that punitive damages are unavailable for discrimination or harassment alone: Re Susan Hall; Dianne Susan Oliver and Karyn Reid v A & A Sheiban Pty Ltd; Dr Atallah Sheiban and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1989) 20 FCR 217. The way that Fraser-Kirk got around this was by making some claims in tort for which punitive damages would be available. The relevant tort is trespass to the person, i.e. touching without consent. Although touching somebody's boobs is deplorable conduct, it is hardly as serious as raping someone or beating them up to the point that their face is unrecognisable. That is why a court would never have awarded such a ridiculously high sum. Moira even admits that. So why do these sexual harassment cases settle for millions of dollars out of court? As Moira said, it's partly to protect reputation. Also, if you have a confidentiality clause, you want it to be honoured. If you give someone a paltry sum like $100,000, then why would someone agree to confidentiality? Today Tonight or Woman's Day would pay $500,000 or more if it's a juicy story. That's one reason why these settlements are so high; it's a recognition of the commercial value of keeping the events a secret. Also, if a claim is particularly complicated and the trial is likely to take particularly long, then legal fees could reach a million bucks. So why not stop the legal fees from piling up and settle? You could ultimately end up paying less than you would if the case went to trial. Even if you won, you wouldn't get all your legal fees back, unless you made a reasonable settlement offer which was refused. As I said above, there are many reasons why people settle. McInnes had a child coming along. He probably wanted the damn case out of the way before his kid was born. I think that's a pretty good reason why you wouldn't fight tooth and nail and instead pick the easier option. Sometimes, there are things that are more important than being proven right. Moira Rayner needs to be taken with a grain of salt. She is a very experienced lawyer and a very smart woman, but her views are one-sided. I've heard of her before and her views are very plaintiff-friendly. She's quite an activist. Indeed, in that interview, one of the first things she said was that DJs responded inappropriately by alleging that Fraser-Kirk led McInnes on. This is a typical criticism that feminist lawyers have of companies' approach to sexual harassment. It's a bit of a furphy. The definition of sexual harassment requires the advances to be unwelcome. If there is evidence to show that the victim led the person on, then it's not sexual harassment. It's hardly inappropriate to raise this evidence to defend a claim. Will it now become inappropriate for people accused of rape who genuinely thought that the other person consented to adduce evidence of the other person leading them on and being totally into it? It just doesn't make any sense. Moira - like many others - just assumed that McInnes was guilty. We still haven't seen a court decision to that effect. Whilst Moira's views about the case are valid and whilst I agree with a lot of what she says, one needs to appreciate the perspective she comes from. Some of the claims she makes - like about DJ's response being inappropriate - aren't really shared by the mainstream legal community. I'm not saying that sexual harassment is worse than rape, but the punitive damages would have to be large enough to have an impact on a company the size of David Jones, so therefor the figure, while quite high, was not a batshit insane figure, or just a woman gunning for a stupidly large payout. Also, just to be clear, I don't support that the claim of punitive damages should be awarded in this case, but if someone was raped and beaten in the same circumstances, with the same internal cover up etc, I would support a claim of punitive damages, and of a higher amount. I already stated that the high figures for other settlements included hush money, but thanks for restating it in a clear way. Also to this point, with her reputation in the gutter for going public I don't find the figure she ended up with too high. Moira is an interesting one and yes, she needs to be seen as an expert for one side. It seems almost counter intuitive that she now mainly works with corporates in defense and advice with regards to prevention on this type of thing.
  13. dumbmonkey

    Kristy Fraser-Kirk

    This. My friend works for them and he certainly doesn't! On a more serious note, a few points: 1. The case would not have gone before a jury. In NSW, you only have jury trials for criminal offences and defamation suits. This was heard in the Federal Court so it would have been heard by a judge alone. 2. The $37 million figure was ridiculous; I wouldn't be surprised if the judge thought it was bordering on contemptuous. Pretty much every employment lawyer I've spoken with about the case agreed that it was a ridiculous claim. Even rape victims - who suffer far more emotional damage than what Fraser-Kirk appears to be suffering - do not get that much. If the case proceeded further and she won, then she'd probably have received less than what she received now. The most I remember being awarded for a sexual harassment case is around $200,000. Judges in Australia simply aren't as profligate with damages awards as they are in America. I have a question for you hlass - the courts in the US award multi-million figures all the time. Has this reduced the incidence of sexual harassment? Or has it merely resulted in a litigious culture where more sexual harassment claims come before the courts all the time? There are perfectly sound justifications for being conservative with damages awards. High awards result in higher insurance premiums and open the floodgates for baseless legal claims. When a case is in the news where somebody gets $100 million, immediately everybody wants to sue. The principle of damages is compensation. Damages should reflect the harm actually suffered. $37 million does not reflect the gravity of the wrong or the harm suffered by Fraser-Kirk. I don't think that anyone who knows anything about this area of law seriously thought she'd be able to get that much. 3. In our system of litigation, the loser pays the winner's party-party costs. These are the costs that are reasonably necessary to achieve justice; usually they're about 60% of the total costs incurred by the winning party. If Fraser-Kirk lost, she'd have to pay DJ's costs. These would have been considerable given the complexity of the case. Furthermore, if you unreasonably refuse a reasonable offer of settlement, proceed to trial and lose or get a less favourable outcome, then the other party may apply from indemnity costs from the date of the offer. Indemnity costs are close to 100% of the party's costs. Thus, there are strong incentives to settle. DJs previously offered Fraser-Kirk a settlement. This settlement sum, as I understand it, was rather generous. If the case went to trial and Fraser-Kirk lost or got awarded less, there's a possibility she would have had to pay all of DJ's legal costs in the matter. Thus, it's unsurprising that she settled. 4. No court has decided on whether McInnes was actually guilty of sexual harassment. A settlement is not an admission of liability. This result does not mean that McInnes is guilty. By the same token, it does not mean that Fraser-Kirk was a liar. The facts simply have been buried and shall not be discussed by either party. Often, parties settle not because they think that they actually committed the wrong, but because they just want the issue to go away. It's unreasonable to speculate on what actually happened since we weren't there. All that is certain is that both parties balanced the competing considerations and decided not to proceed with this claim. $37 mil was for punitive damages, not compensation, DJ's can afford it, and for a company that retails so heavily to women its not that high a figure... Come on law dude! Sexual harassment cases do quite often pay out over a million bucks, but usually involve some money to keep it out of the public eye, not that in this case the amount was not high, but just saying... IANAL but listened to Moira Rayner (a lawyer, consultant to business on workplace behavior and former equal opportunity commissioner in Victoria) on the radio this morning explain a lot about this case in good detail. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stori...010/3041231.htm
  14. dumbmonkey

    Ok, I need some ideas for revenge.

    Just put a note on your milk that says: "Warning, Not Milk"
×