I do and I don't. I've been staring at FFIX on the PSN... they're well priced (considering my 12 year old self sold his ****ing rad Ganeboy pocket to raise the dough for FFIX back in the day... But it feels stupid given it's on the shelf. I don't use my PSP portably -- which is were a PSPGo would be ace, do the only advantage would be playing in bed... But even then if I cared enough for that I could just remote my PS3 to my PSP (though had a lag last I tried). I wish the selection was better. Although I'm really keen to get Grandia -- I never owned it but loved it. Otherwise things are standard. Up to my neck in uni work. I'm helping a Master's student with a computer-complement to her research. I'm applying for a summer internship with the Department of Conservation (they manage the national parks and species recoveries and stuff). It's paid, full-time for four months, and I'm pretty confident I can get it, but I'll have to wait.
Whats happenin in the world of Alpha, hmm? I just started FFV for the first time, and also starting FF8 again. Since I purchased a pspGO, I've been buying all the psn titles so I can have a nifty little account with all the old ps1 games available to me. I like the idea of digital downloads; Cheap games and always have them available to me. I would have thought there would be a lot more titles to choose from though, especially in the PSone section. Do you buy psn titles also?
It's like the first task is to remove the stigma from 'civil union'. I got asked if I supported gay marriage once and I said "No, but-" and they interrupted me and told me that I hate homosexuals. What the ****. While I think one day the Christian churches (and other religions) will come to their senses about this, making a law telling them who they have to marry is anti-secular. Can you make a law telling the Catholic Chirch that it has to give Communion to Hindu? No, you cannot. Because it diesn't make ****ing sense. Marriage is like Communion. It is a religious ceremony. It starts and ends there. If it means a lot to you, well more power to you, but we need a universal and secular alternative -- a civil union. All babies get a birth certificate; some get baptised too. Ideally, all willing couples would get a civil union; sone would get married too.
totally agree about your post before. The problem is I think that marriage isnt known to be a religious thing since its become recognized by law. Thats where the confusion begins. My girlfriend says she would want to marry more than anything, and shes just as athiest as I am. Her reasons are that she would one day want to by reffered to as my wife and I her husband, so I guess its just the recognition and ceremony thats meant to be a constant reminder of the love one feels for another. What I dont understand is why do people 'have to' get married? why not civil union? because it doesnt sound as good? Living in a secular society sometimes confuses me as to why marriage is recognized in a legal sense. I really dont see any benefits from marriage either. Sure, she will by my legal wife, but who says I need a piece of paper to prove that I love her? Also, once married your incomes are combined as a single couples income and rape you tax wise. Im pretty sure thats something that puts me off. Someone said to me after I presented this argument "I feel sorry for those that dont marry for tax reasons" well , ****! Sorry they feel they need to sacrifice that to prove they love their wife. Not saying I wont ever get married, its just something I've been thinking about a lot recently.
Np. Us Southern Hemispherians/Australasians/Oceanians gotta stick together.
Thanks for the vote of confidence
Haha, I know exactly what you mean by the pants at yd. being 'shiny'. I walked past one today and thought about that. I have no problems with Jay Jays and Just Jeans, and get most of my clothes there. They're affordable and don't make you look like a ****, so win win. I have a licence, but no car (because I couldn't afford one, and don't want one). I rarely use my bike though, because I depend on the train at peak hour, and they don't allow bikes on the train at peak hour. I think cyclists should be allowed to cycle on the pavement. It would actually be safer for everyone involved. 1 degree of warming in 150 years is an incredible pace -- far over and above the rate of any temperature change in the geological record. The pace of change alone suggests that the current regime of climate change is anthropogenic, because natural changes have never occurred so rapidly (in fact, the planet has had a tendency to warm slowly and cool rapidly; we're warming rapidly). We also have a lot of temperature change 'in the pipeline', so that even if the human race died out tomorrow, the earth's temperature would rise at least another degree, due to inertia in the climate system. And I agree, those graphs are meant to look intimidating. Why is the line marking temperature red? Because it is suggesting that the change it is showing is 'bad'. An honest scientist would have presented it in neutral colours, because all those graphs show is a relationship between pieces of physical information. It is for other people to interpret the desirability of such a relationship, or of its implications. Tsk tsk.
I like Yd, The clothes are nicer than most other places like jay jays, just jeans etc. When it comes to getting new clothes, I like to have a place where I usually go and Yd has become that place for me. Not a fan of the jeans though, they are too...shiny. I assume you dont drive a car and have no interest in driving a car. I understand why you get pissed off with people complaining when they're apart of the problem (eg, guy is in traffic and says "**** this traffic" although he is apart of traffic) you cannot reccomend everyone to take public transport to aleviate traffic as much as denying immigration as a solution to reduce population, therefor traffic. To each his own. I personally like being able to travel in my car and go where I please in privacy of my vehicle. I only recieved my license just after I turned 20, so prior to then I was taking public transport everywhere. I liked it sometimes because thats when my ipod got used the most, but some of the people that you have to share the bus with are horrible, especially in my area. Im actually in the market for buying a new mountain bike. Theres a steep road outside my house that would provide an excellent workout. Not to mention an alternative to driving all the time. Ill let you in on a pet peeve of mine. Cyclists who ride on the road. I feel obligated to run them over sometimes. Not because the road belongs to me ... actually... yeah thats pretty much it. Cyclists don't pay registration for their vehicle so they should not be entitled to use the roads. They also hold up traffic and get in the way. I find them absolute pests and an absolute outrage that the tax money is being put toward bike lanes. Oh, I know im free to use these lanes at no cost, but why should I have to? Because its free? Well excuse me, but the next time a cyclist is next to me, i might just ask my passenger to check if his door is shut properly.( because he has to open it and it will knock the cyclist)
Very interesting points. Although do you think that 1 degree change over the course of 150 years is something to fuss about? Personally, I think we're being exploited using timeless scare tactics such as pressure and time (eg.if we dont act now, our children will be doomed, etc). In the end, Im all for finding a renewable energy source but paying a tax because of 1 degree in 150 years is exploitation. Theres nothing more to say about it really. Thanks for watching the video though. I had trouble grasping some things you talked about, but I think I have a general Idea of what you were talking about in your reply. Also, those graphs are meant to look intimidating. Reminds me of this Richard Lindzen, MIT, on temperature exaggeration - YouTube
Also, Wikipedia informs me that Richard Lindzen was the lead author of a chapter in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report. Which A) shows that the IPCC is not selective of its science/scientists, and B) that despite what he argued in this chapter (I've only ever read the summaries of the IPCC's reports, the four Assessment Reports are thousands of pages long), it was not enough to overcome the TAR's conclusion that (click on synthesis report): There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Detection and attribution studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 to 50 years. These studies include uncertainties in forcing due to anthropogenic sulfate aerosols and natural factors (volcanoes and solar irradiance), but do not account for the effects of other types of anthropogenic aerosols and land-use changes. The sulfate and natural forcings are negative over this period and cannot explain the warming; whereas most of these studies find that, over the last 50 years, the estimated rate and magnitude of warming due to increasing greenhouse gases alone are comparable with, or larger than, the observed warming. He also works for the Cato Institute, which is a conservative lobby group. Nothing wrong with being a conservative, but this group is the single biggest group of neoliberals anywhere, period, and it does not add to his credibility to be associated with them. I could tell you exactly what they'd support without reading any of their documentation -- they're pure ideologues. When the Cato Institute is combined with climate change, I know exactly what they will argue -- that it is not occurring. Why? Because if it is occurring, it is by definition an environmental externality. And most approaches to correcting environmental externalities involve the government (aaand we're back at Gillard's carbon tax). As they support absolutely no government interference in anything at all, you do the math as to what they're going to think. If you're still not willing to connect the dots, the Cato Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (for example).
We have yd. too. Strikes me as being expensive for no reason. The car sterotype is just yet another pet peeve of mine. I remember one time watching the news, and it was a slow week, so they decided to tackle Auckland's (road) transport issues. The presenter walked among the cars, and interviewed people through their driver-side windows. Every single car had only one person in it -- the driver. Every single driver complained about all the other drivers being there. None of them could see how stupid the situation was. If they all got public transport, you'd need 1/30 the number of engines. There'd be no congestion. They'd all save money. Not really a sterotype, but I get annoyed seeing people driving cars (especially large ones) by themselves on a regular basis, when public transport is a feasible alternative. I especially hate when people complain about a problem when they're part of that problem's cause. I don't know where that came from. I'll watch that video, but I've already told you that I'm not interested in debating the science of climate change. I'm up for debating what we might do about it (including the option of 'nothing'), but not whether or not it's happening, or if people are causing it.
I've been at work for the past 6 hours (true Australian). I know the consensus is in favor of climate change being anthropogenic, but I hardly like to disagree with people who are recognized scientists. But I think if you are truly interested and this is one of your areas, I implore you to watch this. Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria - YouTube If you can find anything wrong with it, please feel free to inform me. Because pretty much everything im basing my opinions around are detailed in this video. If you could bring up reasonable argument to his points then I would consider changing my mind about climates. Although after all the research I've done, It will take some convincing. What stereotype does driving a large car with no people in it belong too? haha. Or are you just targetting the fact I could be a Red 'P' plater? Im wearing a plaid shirt now. Its blue and from a place called Yd.
That's why I said scientific consensus. I could copy and paste a bibliography of 1000 scientists who refute this man's claim. What of Nicholas Stern? Ross Garnaut (he's an Australian)? The majority of scientists believe that climate change is anthropogenic. We won't know until it happens, but if you respect people's education, qualifications and achievements, then surely you should be on the side with the weight of scientific evidence in support? China won't implement a carbon tax because they don't have a market system -- they are actually (pseudo-)communist. People won't 'be out of work' in the long term. I admit that short-term economic pain will occur, but do you think it's fair that we prioritise our current jobs, over our grandchildren's planet? Besides, the whole idea of a tax or cap and trade system is that some sectors will expand as others retract. Those losing jobs in a coal-fired power plant can find another in a solar power plant (or whatever). Admittedly it's more difficult in Australia, with your mining sector, but the principle remains. I wear thin Adidas glasses, plaid shirts, tight jeans, chucks, and use a mountain bike. Nice try. Do you have a tattoo, spiked hair, drive a large car with no/few passengers, and wear tight-fitted t-shirts? [Though I actually think you're more intelligent than the stereotype I have in my head of you.] EDIT: I have to go to work now btw.
Okay, no offence I see you're intelligent, but dont you think you might be missing something? Your tertiary level education cannot match that of a man who makes his living as a respected scientist and the best in his field. If he claims that these so called emissions arn't doing damage, then Ill take his word over yours. He also said if the world was to stop producing these emissions, even after 1000 years there would still be no difference in temperature that would be the fault of emissions. This is an extraordianary claim, but one I would believe based on his qualifications and academic achievments. I think the soft spot here is that people are sick of constant rises in taxes, let alone a new tax. Australia and new zealand produce **** all emissions compared to say, china and everywhere else in the world who is NOT going to implement a carbon tax. I do however agree that money should be invested into a renewable form of energy that would impact less on the environment and cheaper for everyone. Having said that, you must realise that many people will be out of work and there will be more issues to deal with. I think we both agree that taxing is a stupid way of reducing emissions anyway. So do you wear thick black rimmed glasses, green knitted sweaters, tight jeans, vans/chucks and ride $2000 vintage bycicles from the 30s?
I'll just take the carbon tax, as that's the one grabbing all the headlines. First of all, I'm not going to debate climate change. I've been there done that. I've studied geology at a tertiary level. The scientific consensus is in favour of human-induced climate change (especially in terms of the rate at which it is occurring). Temperature is increasing. Fact. GHG emissions have increased since the Industrial Revolution. Fact. GHG concentrations and the Earth's temperature have a strong correlation. Fact. True, correlation does not imply causation. But common sense says they do. But I really don't want to go here (I'm tired of it). So let's take Gillard's assumption: that climate change is anthropogenic. Starting here, creating a carbon tax is going to make the economy more efficient. Why? Because if our (admittedly imperfect) econometric analyses are right, the costs of climate change left unchecked are greater than the costs of mitigating climate change. Besides, the carbon tax is only a temporary measure, on the way to a cap and trade system, which New Zealand and Europe already have, the United States looks likely to get, and so on. Couple that with potential future trading sanctions against those states that have no GHG management system in place, then even if you think climate change is a hoax, it is the economically sensible path to take. The cap and trade system is the most efficient way to curb emissions. A tax is inadequate, in my view. A tax controls price; cap and trade controls amount. Those firms who can make simple and inexpensive changes to limit their emissions do so, and sell their credits to firms that cannot curb their emissions. That way, those sectors of the economy that are low carbon gain capital in order to expand, and those that do not pay for their carbon, which is the substance that costs the economy/environment/society in the long term (thus, the polluter pays). It is the most efficient and fair way to tackle emissions, if we make the assumption that this is what we need to do (as Gillard and the international community generally have).
