less cars : roll on $2 per litre

[[email protected]]

TimC wrote:
> > Education is a state responsibility. Most of the states have
> > been under Labor rule for a good while now. Which party do
> > you think we should have voted for?
>
> One of the minor parties. For far too long people have been treating
> the whole deal as Labor vs Liberal and then complaining that neither
> party gives them a good deal, when there are plenty of alternatives.

Who do you think we DID vote for? How many votes do you think
Labor win on first preferences? I always vote a minor party, but I
know it makes little difference in the upper house and none at all
in the lower house. If we have been treating it as Labor vs Liberal
that is because that is exactly what it is.

 

[TimC]

On 2006-08-17, [email protected] (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>> > Education is a state responsibility. Most of the states have
>> > been under Labor rule for a good while now. Which party do
>> > you think we should have voted for?
>>
>> One of the minor parties. For far too long people have been treating
>> the whole deal as Labor vs Liberal and then complaining that neither
>> party gives them a good deal, when there are plenty of alternatives.
>
> Who do you think we DID vote for? How many votes do you think
> Labor win on first preferences? I always vote a minor party, but I
> know it makes little difference in the upper house and none at all
> in the lower house. If we have been treating it as Labor vs Liberal
> that is because that is exactly what it is.

Someone's putting them for first preference! Hopefully that will
change next year.

--
TimC
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-- Attributed to Benjamin Franklin, 1760

 

[Random Data]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:28:37 -0700, brucef wrote:

> Education is a state responsibility.

Funding for education is Federal, administration is State. So basically
both ends blame each other, and the schools get screwed.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
Brooker's Law: "The wackier the project, the easier it is to fund."

 

[Random Data]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:37:38 +1000, scotty72 wrote:

> Do you also advocate that all in society must use public transport, even
> if they want to add to the value of that service by putting their own
> hard earned.

Not at all. But I do complain that we spend $BIGNUM on the roads and then
complain that PT doesn't turn a profit.

The question is "should all children be given $X for their education, and
some parents toss in more for a 'better' education", or should it be "all
children should have access to equal educational opportunity, with parents
able to buy bells and whistles like a nice shiny uniform, big ovals,
pools, etc."? I think you're seeing it as choice 1, while a lot of the
others here (me included) see choice 2 as more desirable.

The Catholic system is a bit of a weird one. It's essentially government
funded with a bit extra, and the relatively low fees make it viable for a
lot of working class families. Resources tend to be slightly better than
the state schools, but nothing super flash. I think it pretty much falls
into choice 2 above.

The "Private Private" schools are my bugbear. If you want to take
government funding, it should go toward something that's accessible to
all, not only to people willing to cough up 5 figures a year for their
kids. Crying poor while building your twelfth indoor pool is a bit OTT, as
is this exaggeration.

It's also the case that funding to some private schools is skewed, so they
get *more* per child than some public schools. You can blame the stupid
Federal rules regarding how funding is allocated for that, as well as the
fact that well off schools have more access to people whose job it is to
fudge financial figures.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"Soon we will be able to harness the rotational energy from Orwell's
grave to solve all world energy problems" - GigsVT

 

[Random Data]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:08:34 +0000, TimC wrote:

> I might even be able to contribute back to society at some point in time.
> I expect to pay my first taxes next month, and I won't be seeking all
> means possible to go through tax minimisation loopholes.

Well there you go. A perfect example of what you missed out on learning
by going to a public school!

I'll get my coat (the one with a flamethrower in the pocket).

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"If you're bored, find something and break it"
Jamie Rapson - 1996

 

[Donga]

TimC wrote:
> (and we are back to almost where this thread started, probably a sign
> that this should be my last followup to this thread).
>

Goes for both of us. Deal?

Donga

 

[TimC]

On 2006-08-17, Donga (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>> (and we are back to almost where this thread started, probably a sign
>> that this should be my last followup to this thread).
>
> Goes for both of us. Deal?

Indeed. Phew, what a day! Just get started on actual thesis work,
and I have to now go home and tidy up the house and de-catify it for
the inspection tomorrow morning. Anyone in Melbourne want to really
friendly[1] cats for the night?

[1] Offer void where allowed by law.

--
TimC
> cat ~/.signature
Electromagnetic pulse received (core dumped)

 

[Friday]

scotty72 wrote:
> Oh,
>
> What utter B-S. With sensationalist skills like that, you should get a
> job at Today Tonight.
>
> You know that the overwhelming majority of child abuse is by someone
> within the family's circle of trust (uncle, scout leader, step father
> etc.)
>
> The chances of being randomly snatched off the street are probably as
> high as being struck by lightning whilst being eaten by a shark.
>
>
>
> [email protected] Wrote:
>

Actually I know several people that have been struck by lightning whilst
being eaten by a shark!

No I don't, just joking.

Friday

 

[Friday]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> Donga wrote:
>
>>Bleve wrote:
>>
>>>If we get a little smart about transport, and anticipate the
>>>consequences of the (all too foreseable, alas ... but people *are*
>>>stupid) choices made re where we live, how we get to places we want to
>>>go, where we send our kids to school etc, then it's actually not so
>>>bad. The kids can ride their bikes to wherever they want to go, unless
>>>it's stupidly far away, in which case, the consequences of
>>>unsustainable choices are going to smack the people that have made
>>>those choices, and they have no-one to blame but themselves.
>>
>>Unfortunately houses within cooee of the kids' school start at $1
>>million for a dump. I live 12 minutes drive away on a good run. I can
>>ride it in 18 and do when it's just me and I don't need to be
>>'dressed'. It's not a safe ride for my kids, nor could they do it
>>practically with the varying hours and the gear they need. Sure there
>>are choices in all this. I could use the local high and primary
>>schools, for demonstrably worse educational outcomes. We could decide
>
>
> Demonstrated how: your kids went there, and were dumber, so you changed
> their schools? Or demonstrated by someone who wants us to pay more for
> education? What school do they go to, anyway? (I'm sure you have told me
> before.)
>
>
>>not do all the other activities. The extra benefits my kids get are
>>part of the richness of life in Brisbane/Australia in 2006, for those
>>who can afford it. That means driving. Talking about blaming myself is
>>silly. Should I choose to forego what is on offer for my kids? Heck,
>>I'd better move to the country and live in a humpy while I'm at it.
>
>
> I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
>
> I lived within walking distance of 3 local primary schools and 3 high
> schools, within walking distance of shops and medical centres and so on.
> That was ten years ago - is it no longer do-able?
>
> This leads me to a question about the education and health care
> systems...
>
> With a push to private health cover, is our health system improving -
> are we just making the public system worse... and does a similar thing
> happen in schooling? Is it like a public transport system - the more we
> use it, the more viable and effective it becomes?
>
> Tam

Tam you've had eight postings on this thread today. How 'bout you sit
down and let some of the other kids have a go.

Friday

 

[Friday]

Graeme Dods wrote:
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>
>>As this thread grows, I become more frustrated.
>>
>>I believe the subject should be "fewer cars..." rather than "less
>>cars..." to reflect that we are referring to a number of discrete items
>>(used with a plural noun) rather than a degree/quantity of a continuum
>>(used with a singular noun).
>
>
> And I bet you don't use the "9 items or less" checkout at the
> supermarket as a protest at such terrible grammar!
>
> In the UK Marks & Spencer (sort of similar to David Jones) changed
> their signs to "10 items or fewer" a few years ago. I bet you'd love
> "Eats shoots and leaves" by Lynne Truss (about punctuation rather than
> grammar, but a wonderful read).
>
> Graeme
>

I thought it was "Eats, roots, shoots and leaves."
I can't remember if it was about men or wombats.

Friday

 

[dave]

TimC wrote:
> On 2006-08-17, Donga (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>TimC wrote:
>>
>>>(and we are back to almost where this thread started, probably a sign
>>>that this should be my last followup to this thread).
>>
>>Goes for both of us. Deal?
>
>
> Indeed. Phew, what a day! Just get started on actual thesis work,
> and I have to now go home and tidy up the house and de-catify it for
> the inspection tomorrow morning. Anyone in Melbourne want to really
> friendly[1] cats for the night?
>
> [1] Offer void where allowed by law.
>

No Not at all. ALley would hate it. But if we become your only option?

Dave

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Bleve wrote:

> And anyone whining about having to look after 3 kids and it not being
> fair, kids aren't compulsory, it's not like the stalk dropped them off
> and lo! 3 kids to look after! amazing! That's a choice you make too

My parents had ten kids and never complained. We never did without either. I
had my first store-bought shirt (ie, not made by mum) when I started work. I
have three children, a low number compared to my siblings.

And it's stork dammit, not stalk. In Holland we had one nesting next to our
chimney. Mum blamed her, or him, but she had two more children after we
moved to Oz, so....

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Random Data wrote:

> It's also the case that funding to some private schools is skewed, so
> they get *more* per child than some public schools. You can blame the
> stupid Federal rules regarding how funding is allocated for that, as
> well as the fact that well off schools have more access to people
> whose job it is to fudge financial figures.

Yeah, I don't understand that. The expensive schools get funding depending
on the parents income. The more money the parents make, the more money the
Gov't gives the school.

???

Theo

 

[Graeme Dods]

Friday wrote:
> I thought it was "Eats, roots, shoots and leaves."
> I can't remember if it was about men or wombats.

It was about pandas when I first heard it and it didn't have the
"roots" bit in it (but that's probably because root is more of an
Australian word, in this context at least). For more of an explanation,
have a look here - http://eatsshootsandleaves.com

Graeme

 

[Graeme Dods]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> And it's stork dammit, not stalk. In Holland we had one nesting next to our
> chimney. Mum blamed her, or him, but she had two more children after we
> moved to Oz, so....

So storks are migratory birds, your family just had one with more
stamina

Graeme

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2006-08-18, Graeme Dods <[email protected]> wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> And it's stork dammit, not stalk. In Holland we had one nesting next to our
>> chimney. Mum blamed her, or him, but she had two more children after we
>> moved to Oz, so....
>
> So storks are migratory birds, your family just had one with more
> stamina

Or maybe this particular stork had a vendetta going against Theo's
family. ;-)

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Stuart Lamble wrote:
> On 2006-08-18, Graeme Dods <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> And it's stork dammit, not stalk. In Holland we had one nesting
>>> next to our chimney. Mum blamed her, or him, but she had two more
>>> children after we moved to Oz, so....
>>
>> So storks are migratory birds, your family just had one with more
>> stamina
>
> Or maybe this particular stork had a vendetta going against Theo's
> family. ;-)

In 1953 Mum, Dad and the then 7 children arrived in Oz. At the 2005 family
reunion, 118 turned up, but only because another ten or so couldn't make it.
Mum is no longer with us but Dad is now 92 and has 5 g-g-grandchildren (I
think). The population of Oz has more than doubled since we arrived.

Theo
Lost count since then.

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2006-08-16, Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
> cfsmtb wrote:
>> Well they could of once, before the brick and tile wonderlands took
>> over the market gardens & orchards in the post-war suburb sprawl. Not
>> now, the McMansions have stuffed that option.
>
> Market gardens are a very minor producer of the major vege items.

Yes, *now* they are. That's not to say that they have to be that way,
and if the cost of transport keeps going the way it has been, they would
(eventually) become the major producer. Large-scale centralised
production is not a long-term viable strategy.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Terryc wrote:
> ghostgum wrote:
>>
>>
>> The cost to run an electric vehicle is not the cost of the
>> electricity to charge the batteries, it is the cost of replacing the
>> batteries every 1-5 years.
>
> Is that a comment based on actual experience?
> He certainly would be lucky to get that if he treated his batteries
> the way most people treat their current car batteries. Depending on
> driving conditions, say regular daily commute to desk job, with
> proper (monthly) care, I would expect that his batteries could last
> thn years. (thinking lead acid, nothing else).

Ten years? We're not talking car batteries here, you need deep discharge
batteries. Will last maybe 5 years in lead-acid, and cost twice as much as a
regular car battery.

Theo

 

[TimC]

On 2006-08-18, Travis (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> What if there was a tax system though which prevented the most
> productive people from making the biggest profits?

Um, in every tax system I have met, progressive or regressive, the
more money you get paid, the more money you get, fullstop.

Who cares if you do 2 dollars "worth" of work, and get 1 dollar back?
You still get money for working "harder".

> While it is regrettable that some people won't be able to afford to buy
> much stuff because the products or services they can provide are not
> worth much to the community,

I like this "worth" thing though. Apparently, teachers aren't as
worthy as CTOs of a dotbomb.

We can do without these damn cleaners too. All they ever do is empty
the wrong bins, and you and I can do that anytime.

> Who can deny that the quality of life today is better than it was 100
> years ago?

My friend Matthew in school who lived in a squalid caravan for 4 others.

Or anyone that ends up in modern prisons because they can't do
anything else other than commit crime to survive. At least in the
past they would have been shot and put out of their misery. Or
exploited but given a roof over their heads.

> Ordinary working class people today can afford clothes, food and
> housing that a few hundred years ago would have been only available to
> great noblemen.
>
> If productivity continues to grow at such a rate, ordinary people in a
> few hundred years will, on average, enjoy a lifestyle that only the
> wealthy enjoy today.

If the almost closed system that is the earth (+ solar input) could
sustain a concept we mere mortals call "infinite growth".

Pity economists seemed to have missed this (or is Costello, with his
"have one for the country" policy, not a real economist?)

--
TimC
It's the _target_ that supposed to go "F00F", not the processor.
-- Mike Andrews, on Pentiums in missiles