Rowan
Boxer of the Galaxy

I'd recommend them to anyone. They have more functionality, the buttons are more responsive and the only downside for me is they only play PSN titles - some UMD games never had a PSN version.

I love the idea. I'm actually excited to see what happens.

Whatever happens, happens. lol

Thanks Man

Np. Us Southern Hemispherians/Australasians/Oceanians gotta stick together.

sUP SON

I have no qualms with the acknoledgement of religion and the role it plays in relation to same sex marrages. The point of the religious side of my post is that it could turn to a religious topic which is another topic all together and already has a thread for that. Also I don't want people spouting stupid stuff like god hates fags or one liner bs that is an opinion of the individual not knowing what their creator truly hates and likes.

Alphas post and yours are fine and mantain to the topic at hand. Also its Meier Link, not Link Meier hahahahaa.kidding.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Rofl. I'm glad I didn't tell you that I vote for the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand.

But I do. So I'll just go and "die a horrible death".

When the alternative is Tony Abbott?! Are you kidding me? I support anything that's not him. Wouldn't go near him with a barge pole.

I would like sex ambelences to take him away. In sex pieces.

Except that Australians would have tastier apples at a lower price, completely free of a disease that has never existed here.

But I understand why you wouldn't want those. You see they're the secret of our superior accents.

Well it's simple. You all look like convicts who have never eaten a tasty New Zealand apple.