Jump to content

bilious

Atomican
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Serf

About bilious

  • Rank
    Learner
  1. Greenpeace Australia have posted the article to their website. I think it's safe to say that yes - they're responsible for it; yes - they filmed it; yes - they're willing taking the rap. The article is at http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/new...ainst-GM-wheat/ I think also it's safe to say that you have an over-active imagination that attempts to sully the good name of CSIRO.
  2. 1. Use Magic Jelly Bean to find out what key you have used. I would recommend that if you are simply formatting and not changing hardware that you reuse your key, and keep the other in reserve. 2. Would probably suggest that you do the following for hard drive partitions: Use the 200gb as a Windows only drive, but do not, under any circumstances, store anything you feel attached to on this drive. It's so old it'll probably fail at some point. On the 1tb drive: split into two partitions - one the size of your windows drive or about 100gb (for when the old drive inevitably fails and you want to install Windows onto your remaining hard drive), and the remainder for document and photo storage, and if you download Steam content in one big partition.
  3. So, to close out my involvement here I'll wrap up some loose ends: "Just asking questions" stops being 'just asking questions' when you promote a position through the use of leading questions and statements. Deliberate misinterpretation of evidence is treason against reason. Ignorant misinterpretation bretrays your lack of understanding and draws into question the rest of your statements. If you are really interested in a topic, I'd encourage you to look to authoritative sources. Blogs and the like are often heavily biased. Any law library will allow you to wander in and read about contract law. "Principles of Australian Contract Law" is probably worth looking at, and will have a page or two dedicated to the current legal position on completeness of contracts as well as excerpts from relevant cases. To Robzy: Yes, maybe we're on different wavelengths as to what constitutes "thin air". I just see FRB as an innovative, intelligent and useful way to use resources (including public trust) to provide liquidity. To Alien Intercourse: The biggest users of loans are the rich. This isn't a question of borrowers being poor money managers, or lacking earning potential. Their loans are strictly because lenders believe in their earning potential. Home loans might be a slightly different story, because stability of the investment price is factored in - but repayment ability is usually an important part of lending. To Director: I'd really like to help you understand this better, but like I said, your ignorant misinterpretation betrays your complete lack of understanding. I'd like to put some things out there though for you: The regulatory authority responsible for banks is APRA. APRA's top-most leadership is between seven people, only one of whom has ever worked for a commercial bank. I didn't know this twenty minutes ago - I looked it up. I suggest you do so too #1 #2. Those are people who are dedicated to economic stability and prosperity. They have likely helped to add 5 years to your life, a few grand to your annual income and you wouldn't even know it. Judges don't decide "regardless of the law". Their life is dedicated to justice and reason, and I think your words are downright meanspirited. I can't rehash the same old things over and over here without going insane, so I have decided to gracefully bow out of the thread. I am glad for those people who have PMed me and said they were grateful for my reason and information - because it means someone out there is open to critical thought.
  4. As far as the lag between rate changes and the like, as I said, without an agreement to see there is no way I can say why. My guess is that it's because the target overnight cash rate isn't a rate for mortgages, but it is something that can be used a benchmark by the banks to determine the level of risk they're willing to take. a) Fractional reserve banking is making a set of known capital stretch farther, it's not just making it out of nothing. However, they have rules and regulations that ensure that their stretching is safe. b) Banking (prudential standard) determination No. 3 of 2006 - Prudential Standard APS 110 - Capital Adequacy says you're wrong. Worth mentioning is that the 2002 article you linked noted that the asset requirement was dropped to 3%, and if banks could prove they had a handle on things they could have that limit waived (in exchange for their compliance to an approved liquidity policy). c) There's always a tacit deposit guarantee. It's tacit to ensure that there's no moral hazard as far as risk taking goes. If there's no explicit guarantee reserve bank can always rightfully say "Nope, you took too many risks and your deposit holders knew of the risks and wanted them." and not pay out. If you want to see moral hazard in action, just look at the US investment banks which labelled themselves as deposit holders to get Club Fed insurance for all their liabilities. In addition, an explicit guarantee would make the regulatory system look untrustworthy when really APRA does good work.
  5. I quite like it too, but it's not from thin air - it's making a resource go further, bounded by certain rules to ensure the security of the system. They have capital and use it in a clever way, but it's not like they don't have that original capital.
  6. OK. Let's start with some bona fides: I have economics and law degrees, so the topic is close to my heart. (I previously had photos of my testamurs, but I have decided to edit them out.) Basically, everything you have said about the law and economics is false, Director. You are going to go off half-cocked about some nonsense you're reading on the net, and which appeals to your sensibilities. I'm not doing this for someone so blatantly invested that you would swallow this crap, I'm doing this for anyone else who is on the fence and thinking to themselves "Hey maybe this interpretation holds some water". It doesn't - don't think that. Let's take the claims in order. 1. A variable interest rate loan is not permitted under law because the necessary elements of the contract are to be set out fully (ie the cost of the agreement). Wrong. If a term of the agreement is dependent upon an external event that is determinable, that is fine. Most bank interest rates are something along the lines of 2.5% higher than the RBA target overnight cash rate or something like this. Even if they weren't, it's not uncommon for a rate or price to be determinable at a future time, (almost always with a recourse to arbitration at a future time). I haven't got a sample agreement, do I cannot say how this guy's bank has done it - but it's most likely perfectly defensible. Warren's claim is ... not what you have made it out to be. Hers is a position which tries to defend consumers from predatory lending practices. A variable interest rate is not a predatory practice, and in the quick reading that I have done on her position, is not a target of her work. 2. A bank produces money out of thin air. Wrong. Banks do indeed conduct fractional reserve banking techniques, but it is subject to three important caveats: a) they loan money out based on a fractional reserve basis, which means it's based on a calculation of the amount and longevity of savings that are held by customers. It's common, it's well known and understood, and it's generally uncontroversial. b) they operate in an environment of government oversight which sets and monitors their minimum reserve ratio. The Reserve Bank ensures that banks play by rules which keep deposits and loans safe ... and if they don't c) they get in trouble, either by being taken over or having their reserve bank protection removed. The reserve bank insurance is a government promise that should the bank have problems, the government will protect its deposits. Banks pay for this service (in fact, they MUST pay for this service if they want to take advantage of fractional reserve lending). So they don't make up money, they just cleverly use their deposits to their advantage, in an environment which is safe and protected. 3. Juries are being misdirected if they are told that a judge is the only person who can inform them of the state of the law. (I know you just quoted the blog on this, but it's worth setting straight.) Wrong. Judges are arbiters of law. Juries are arbiters of fact. The judge's role in jury trials is to ensure that the jury decides only factual questions. This is the system. It's how it is. And I am quite certain that it's the best way to run a legal system. The reasoning is thus: If a law is misapplied or misinterpreted this is the basis for a retrial and many appeals have been granted on this basis. If you had members of a court applying law, who were not trained in both the interpretation and application of law - there is an phenomenal risk of misapplication of law and therefore of retrials. There's also the question of consistency in law, and having skilled practitioners ensures that the law is relatively predictable. If I could give you one piece of advice here it is this: Don't repeat bullshit, and in not doing so, do not infect the minds of other people with bullshit. And one last thing - don't use legal argument to attempt to defend what is essentially a political argument. It doesn't work.
  7. bilious

    raid 00 aray ?

    Pro: It can be slightly faster than having the drives as normal drives. Con: You're playing the equivalent of Russian Roulette with your data. If a drive fails, you lose everything. If you're using an onboard RAID controller, and it fails, you probably will lose everything (unless you're bought a spare controller/motherboard). If you look at it the wrong way, you lose everything.
  8. bilious

    AGL Sales P/L

    Just got "Final reminder" in the post from AGL as well, for a bill amounting to $225.62. The bill was in the account name "Customer Dear" (no joke). Called the telephone number, got a guy who had relatively poor telephone/CSR skills. I don't think he responded to my agitation is a very diligent manner, but that's beside the point. He just told me to ignore it if I have never used AGL. More importantly, he said that they have done a recent mailout before sending these accounts to collections. My biggest beefs are that the letter a) Doesn't even have a name. Not a shred of information about to whom this debt belongs. b) Doesn't define the claimed period of gas service. c) Doesn't offer a breakdown of what the debt is for. d) Doesn't give any way for me tell them that it's not my debt. e) Doesn't tell me anything about what they intend to do (my prime concern was that they would have the gas shut off). My guess is that AGL send generic non-descript letters for $X hoping that many rubes will just freak out and pay them. I think given that they don't tell you when the bill is for, and who incurred it - it's a fine line between their actions and outright deception.
  9. bilious

    Annoying mac-hatter in the office..

    I'm not somebody who can let a good visual pun, or a spelling mistake pass me by. Pretty much everything you say is crap. I do hardware repair/support for a reasonably large facility. We have about 150 iMacs deployed, maybe about 30 Apple laptops (Macbook Pros, Macbook Airs), about 1500 Dell PCs and about 200 Dell laptops (mainly Dell Latitude). The Macs aren't better or worse than the Dells. The only complaint I have about Apple's service is that they have not built up the same institutional efficiency as Dell. Dell are on the ball for service and customer support. They are rapid, they communicate all the time, and keep you in the loop. Apple are the opposite. Sometimes a bit slow to respond, keep you entirely in the dark and often never admit to any problem with their equipment. Amongst my IT friends (outside of work), we have a three word sentence we often say when dealing with Apple, and it isn't pretty. "Apple are c...s." However, Apple's legendary institutional crapfulness pales in comparison to the shonkiness and completely ass-backwardness you can run into with custom specced PCs. I build my own PCs, all the time. But I also don't mind so much spending five hours on a Saturday night diagnosing a flaky video card. In an office environment, the $200 you might save on going custom is going to be gobbled up very quickly by the overtime you spend on working out WTF is going on with your fleet.
  10. bilious

    If your for that romantic getaway...

    Your all wrong, typo's are a function of intention not spelling. Their are many things that are wrong, but typo's may or may not be them.
  11. I use Illustrator, Photoshop and to a lesser extent Indesign for work and pleasure. I use both Macs and PCs, and use Bootcamp to switch between operating systems on my Mac computers. In my experience, I have not found a significant advantage for either in terms of loading the software you are talking about using. A bunch of RAM is basically your priority (and for CS4 photoshop, there is some advantage to having a good graphics card). In terms of speccing it out, you'll see the Macs are significantly more expensive for the same level of hardware. There is undoubtedly a Mac price premium. SOme of that represents the supposed quality of their components (which often turns out not to be the case), some of it represents the cross-pricing influence that OSX provides. If I was paying for equipment, I think I would put the money to use on better generic hardware and run Windows 7. I don't think OSX provides much appeal to me. Also, Brains is 100% correct on using Illustrator. There's a special place in hell for people who use Photoshop to draw shapes and edit things better edited in vector.
  12. bilious

    Before you buy a GPS app for your iPhone

    To some extent, the analysis that Krispy is parrotting seems correct. A strict reading of the road rules indicate that: A person using a mobile phone whilst driving is breaking the law. But, a person who uses a hands free whilst making a call is not breaking the law. So, even if you are "using" (eg following the navigational instructions of) a mobile phone for some purpose while not making a phone call, then the law still applies even if you are using a handsfree aid (eg a cradle). Of course this is a very strict, legalistic interpretation of the statute. My gut feeling is that it would be a daft magistrate who actually convicts anyone based on this. One might mount a (maybe not so robust) argument that a mobile phone is not a mobile phone if it is not receiving or transmitting communications. You might also mount an argument going to the core of the legislative interpretation that the purpose of preventing communication whilst handling a phone in a manner that impedes the operation of a motor vehicle is not in any way obviated by the use/permitting of mobile phones acting as navigational aides.
  13. bilious

    Before you buy a GPS app for your iPhone

    I realise it's from Gizmodo and everything, that bastion of critical legal thinking, but let's be reasonable here. Cops aren't going to bust people for having a GPS capable phone mounted to their dash. Please, when you make an original post, add something to it in the way of critical thought rather than repeating and extending the hyperbole offered by these sites. Maybe you could discuss how this is an overly technical reading of the uniform road rules. Maybe you could discuss how the use of a GPS could distract. Maybe you could discuss how the Road Rules are regularly reviewed by all jurisdictions and Rule 300 itself has been regularly updated to meet the times. Anything except talk about how "shortsighted the application developers and the public are" which is in itself evidence of an utter lack of any thought whatsoever.
  14. bilious

    Goodbye Caps Lock?

    I don't think it's a cost cutting exercise. If you read the article, you'd realise that they're doing lots of research to work out the optimum keyboard layout. Research costs money.
  15. You should write to them. I heard anecdote invalidates carefully controlled scientific studies with large sample sizes.
×