Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Owlbread]

Fiber optics don't cost all that much compared to copper anymore, the expense is mostly a reputation of days gone by. Copper is becoming ever more expensive while fiber optics become ever less expensive. I don't know if it would be cost effective now, but it will be cost effective everywhere eventually.

How long do you think that will take?

Also, the Liberal National Party are making an enormous mistake. On a subject like vastly improved fibre optic cable broadband to the masses, their paltry sum won't cut it. It's one of those things where you just have to outdo the competition and promise something more or equal.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Fiber optics don't cost all that much compared to copper anymore, the expense is mostly a reputation of days gone by. Copper is becoming ever more expensive while fiber optics become ever less expensive. I don't know if it would be cost effective now, but it will be cost effective everywhere eventually.

How long do you think that will take?

It all depends on pressure against copper ISPs. Google Fiber's presence is going to make it happen quickly in the US because the standing ISPs don't want to lose everything to Google Fiber's objectively better deal.

In Australia, I guess it will depend upon if Labor or Liberal wins.

[Owlbread]

It all depends on pressure against copper ISPs. Google Fiber's presence is going to make it happen quickly in the US because the standing ISPs don't want to lose everything to Google Fiber's objectively better deal.

In Australia, I guess it will depend upon if Labor or Liberal wins.

I suppose areas where single companies hold the monopoly will suffer for much longer. Is the plan for the fibres to be provided by the government itself or by independent companies?

I must be careful that I don't derail us away from the topic of Australasian politics but it's so damned hard. I wanted to have a big discussion about the relationship that improved internet connections would have to societal development in African and South American countries but I may take that somewhere more general.

[Max White]

It is looking like Liberals will win, most of the mostly unbiased sources are leaning that way, although there are some who are saying Labor with a reduced majority, they are few and far between.

But you always must remember, this is Australia! We don't have a president, we have a parliament! It has actually been suggested that the greens, third largest and most rapidly growing, might gain balance of power in the senate, allowing Labor to easily get through what ever they like, assuming the Greens roll with it, and they will in a political alliance in order to wage war against climate change.
Very tiny chance, but a man can dream.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I suppose areas where single companies hold the monopoly will suffer for much longer. Is the plan for the fibres to be provided by the government itself or by independent companies?

I don't know, I'm not Australian.

[kingfisher1112]

I suppose areas where single companies hold the monopoly will suffer for much longer. Is the plan for the fibres to be provided by the government itself or by independent companies?

I don't know, I'm not Australian.

I'm sorry, but what is the point in going to a macro-region politics thread not knowing what the fuck is going on. It's not because you're not Australian/Malaysian/Indonesian/New Zealander but if you're going to debate and discuss local issues with a  country at least have a basic knowledge about what's going on.

It is looking like Liberals will win, most of the mostly unbiased sources are leaning that way, although there are some who are saying Labor with a reduced majority, they are few and far between.

But you always must remember, this is Australia! We don't have a president, we have a parliament! It has actually been suggested that the greens, third largest and most rapidly growing, might gain balance of power in the senate, allowing Labor to easily get through what ever they like, assuming the Greens roll with it, and they will in a political alliance in order to wage war against climate change.
Very tiny chance, but a man can dream.

Wage war on personal freedom, The ADF, gun rights...

[Max White]

Wage war on personal freedom? What, like allowing gay marriage? I will not have my personal freedom infringed by letting homosexuals enjoy the same rights I do!

[kingfisher1112]

Wage war on personal freedom? What, like allowing gay marriage? I will not have my personal freedom infringed by letting homosexuals enjoy the same rights I do!

Yeah, personal freedoms like gun rights. I bet you they are not happy with the fact that people still have bolt-action rifles and small caliber handguns. No matter what you say it's still a freedom that has been infringed in the past.
The Greens and Labour only want to advance the nanny state. I mean, come on. Back in the old days there was Guy Fawkes day, less restrictions on everything, science hands-on was actually cool.

[Max White]

Can you provide any actual evidence for these claims? Where is the legislation for a ban on bolt-action rifles and small caliber handguns? Or perhaps you are just inventing something in your own mind and attacking that.

Also, loving argumentum ad antiquitatem, I haven't seen one of those pulled out for a while! Truly you argue from the heart, rather than the head.
Anyway, care to take a guess what party is promoting science by looking to fund education, advance green energy and allow fields of research that are seen as forbidden by the right such as stem cell research? If you want to argue in favor of science, Liberals aren't on very good grounds.

[kingfisher1112]

Can you provide any actual evidence for these claims? Where is the legislation for a ban on bolt-action rifles and small caliber handguns? Or perhaps you are just inventing something in your own mind and attacking that.

Also, loving argumentum ad antiquitatem, I haven't seen one of those pulled out for a while! Truly you argue from the heart, rather than the head.
Anyway, care to take a guess what party is promoting science by looking to fund education, advance green energy and allow fields of research that are seen as forbidden by the right such as stem cell research? If you want to argue in favor of science, Liberals aren't on very good grounds.

The Greens have a very solid history of attacking gun rights, with a few of their pollies being some of the biggest advocates. It's only a matter of time, just as Gay Rights increase gun rights will decrease. And also, can you provide evidence that the SSAA and the H&F are ' irresponsible shooters'
Also, see Julia Gillard for a perfect example of arguing from the heart. Also, using Latin does not make you look smarter, it only really disrupts the flow of reading. And, can you really see why Stem Cells might even be slightly taboo? It's basically injecting early human cells into yourself.
Oh yes, education! Wonderful. Do you know how much the national curriculum screwed over teachers? You're not free to make large changes to the course outline in primary or secondary school, basically adding to the production line mentality. Nope, sorry, you can't do a larger series of WW2, you need to do Aboriginal history! Pfft, energy? Fuck that, you do Radioactivity first! Someone straggling behind? Screw him, we have a whole class.
Advancing Green energy? Private companies, large ones, are doing that anyway.
Also, we can't exactly manage the whole slew of things you just mentioned with our budget shrinking.

[Max White]

Hoo boy, first hit off the bat and you once again break into a logical fallacy! This time it is the slippery slope fallacy, you do like your irrational reasoning, don't you? That makes two posts in a row!
And any organisation that resists licencing and other safety measures is irresponsible.

I don't care what you have to say on Gillard, pulling her in is a pretty blatant strawman. I don't care if you don't understand some pretty basic terminology, you can ask or google. I won't think any less of you for asking what something means.

You are made of human cells. In fact I have an appointment to hand over some of my cells so that they can be injected into somebody in need on the 17th, and do every twelve weeks when the blood donation van rolls into town. I would very much like to see life saving medicine advanced.

I don't know how much the national curriculum screwed over teachers, could you provide some actual sources? I am interested now.
If you look at the money in green energy, compared to spending on coal fired energy, you might realize it is an unfortunate niche.

I mentioned education and research. That is a 'whole slew of things'?

[kingfisher1112]

Hoo boy, first hit off the bat and you once again break into a logical fallacy! This time it is the slippery slope fallacy, you do like your irrational reasoning, don't you? That makes two posts in a row!
And any organisation that resists licencing and other safety measures is irresponsible.

I don't care what you have to say on Gillard, pulling her in is a pretty blatant strawman. I don't care if you don't understand some pretty basic terminology, you can ask or google. I won't think any less of you for asking what something means.

You are made of human cells. In fact I have an appointment to hand over some of my cells so that they can be injected into somebody in need on the 17th, and do every twelve weeks when the blood donation van rolls into town. I would very much like to see life saving medicine advanced.

I don't know how much the national curriculum screwed over teachers, could you provide some actual sources? I am interested now.
If you look at the money in green energy, compared to spending on coal fired energy, you might realize it is an unfortunate niche.

I mentioned education and research. That is a 'whole slew of things'?

Education and research are very expansive fields. That is a slew of things, and we simply don't have the cash. We should be getting revenue, not spend spend spend.

You have no evidence the Greens are going to sit back and let us have our guns. They have a confirmed history of anti-gunning, and certainly none of giving back gun rights. It's not a slippery slope argument, it's a " These guys confirmed don't like guns" argument.

The Latin, well, fine, you can have it if you really need it. I personally don't see the point, but hey, freedom of speech and all.

Alright, we are made of human cells. But if we clone or use aborted babies, they don't have a choice in the matter. That's the thing I'm concerned about. Sure, huge advances in medical science, but at the price of what. A lot of modern medicine is based off Third Reich stuff, and while this isn't nearly in the same area by miles, it does remind me of it somewhat.

Well, the teachers thing, I happen to be in the education system right now. Basically: The school's pissed off. Teachers are. Students are. Same thing in other public schools in my area. The problem is, you get standardisation but systems teachers have developed over potential decades are scrapped. You basically lose all other methods than the one the government wants. This is especially bad in country towns for teachers, as they might not have the resources to do the stuff the government wants them to do.

Well, stuff like Hydrogen power could be profitable, with cheap fuel, potentially medium level maintenance and operation costs. Sadly Nuclear isn't even being considered anymore. Chernobyl basically screwed the idea and then Fukushima basically put the nail in the coffin.

[Blargityblarg]

Alright, we are made of human cells. But if we clone or use aborted babies, they don't have a choice in the matter. That's the thing I'm concerned about. Sure, huge advances in medical science, but at the price of what. A lot of modern medicine is based off Third Reich stuff, and while this isn't nearly in the same area by miles, it does remind me of it somewhat.

Of course, there are no ethics boards or anything overseeing what research does and does not get funded. Such a system would be downright practical.

[Max White]

Education and research are very expansive fields. That is a slew of things, and we simply don't have the cash. We should be getting revenue, not spend spend spend.

You have no evidence the Greens are going to sit back and let us have our guns. They have a confirmed history of anti-gunning, and certainly none of giving back gun rights. It's not a slippery slope argument, it's a " These guys confirmed don't like guns" argument.

The Latin, well, fine, you can have it if you really need it. I personally don't see the point, but hey, freedom of speech and all.

Alright, we are made of human cells. But if we clone or use aborted babies, they don't have a choice in the matter. That's the thing I'm concerned about. Sure, huge advances in medical science, but at the price of what. A lot of modern medicine is based off Third Reich stuff, and while this isn't nearly in the same area by miles, it does remind me of it somewhat.

Well, the teachers thing, I happen to be in the education system right now. Basically: The school's pissed off. Teachers are. Students are. Same thing in other public schools in my area. The problem is, you get standardisation but systems teachers have developed over potential decades are scrapped. You basically lose all other methods than the one the government wants. This is especially bad in country towns for teachers, as they might not have the resources to do the stuff the government wants them to do.

Well, stuff like Hydrogen power could be profitable, with cheap fuel, potentially medium level maintenance and operation costs. Sadly Nuclear isn't even being considered anymore. Chernobyl basically screwed the idea and then Fukushima basically put the nail in the coffin.

Education and research are very profitable fields. Education is one of this nations biggest exports. If you hadn't noticed, we don't actually produce very much, we depend on a strong education system for a large part of our GDP. Investing in these fields isn't just some luxury, it is sustainable business plan.

I have no evidence the greens aren't cutting out the hearts of virgins and sacrificing them to the god Xom. Be reasonable and debate what people are saying they will do, not just the extreme stereotypes in your own mind.

Also, do I get the right to invoke Godwins here? Seriously, "A lot of modern medicine is based off Third Reich stuff", that is your argument? Have you ever heard of the Haber process? If you object to scientific knowledge based on the morality of the people it came from, you better never eat food again.

Ok, people are 'pissed off', that is informative. If it is because teachers have to change their methods, you might want to look up that latin phrase I used before.

Just because something 'could be profitable' doesn't mean it is being used.

[kingfisher1112]

Education and research are very expansive fields. That is a slew of things, and we simply don't have the cash. We should be getting revenue, not spend spend spend.

You have no evidence the Greens are going to sit back and let us have our guns. They have a confirmed history of anti-gunning, and certainly none of giving back gun rights. It's not a slippery slope argument, it's a " These guys confirmed don't like guns" argument.

The Latin, well, fine, you can have it if you really need it. I personally don't see the point, but hey, freedom of speech and all.

Alright, we are made of human cells. But if we clone or use aborted babies, they don't have a choice in the matter. That's the thing I'm concerned about. Sure, huge advances in medical science, but at the price of what. A lot of modern medicine is based off Third Reich stuff, and while this isn't nearly in the same area by miles, it does remind me of it somewhat.

Well, the teachers thing, I happen to be in the education system right now. Basically: The school's pissed off. Teachers are. Students are. Same thing in other public schools in my area. The problem is, you get standardisation but systems teachers have developed over potential decades are scrapped. You basically lose all other methods than the one the government wants. This is especially bad in country towns for teachers, as they might not have the resources to do the stuff the government wants them to do.

Well, stuff like Hydrogen power could be profitable, with cheap fuel, potentially medium level maintenance and operation costs. Sadly Nuclear isn't even being considered anymore. Chernobyl basically screwed the idea and then Fukushima basically put the nail in the coffin.

Education and research are very profitable fields. Education is one of this nations biggest exports. If you hadn't noticed, we don't actually produce very much, we depend on a strong education system for a large part of our GDP. Investing in these fields isn't just some luxury, it is sustainable business plan.

I have no evidence the greens aren't cutting out the hearts of virgins and sacrificing them to the god Xom. Be reasonable and debate what people are saying they will do, not just the extreme stereotypes in your own mind.

Also, do I get the right to invoke Godwins here? Seriously, "A lot of modern medicine is based off Third Reich stuff", that is your argument? Have you ever heard of the Haber process? If you object to scientific knowledge based on the morality of the people it came from, you better never eat food again.

Ok, people are 'pissed off', that is informative. If it is because teachers have to change their methods, you might want to look up that latin phrase I used before.

Just because something 'could be profitable' doesn't mean it is being used.

The teachers, well, they are more than pissed off. It has genuinely impacted quality of education now. Take for example during tests I'm now a number, not a name. A small change, yes, but an indicative one. Factory line mentality. Education is important, yes, but I'd rather take a funding cut then my teachers losing their individual methods which work.

My problem with Stem Cell research is that it's ethics are questionable. This isn't much of an issue for me, and I was trying to highlight that it could have great benefits, it is potentially morally reprehensible.

But the Greens don't have a history of cutting out the hearts of virgins. They do of wanting to get rid of guns. Also you keep avoiding my question. Why are the SSAA and H&F, in your mind, irresponsible shooters?

Well, encourage those things. Solar only works when the sun is shining and wind only when the wind is blowing, so Hydrogen and Nuclear could fill those gaps.