GABBA110360
Well-Known Member
the next thread will be titled goodbye BILL or goodbye MALCOM or HOW MANY KNIVES JULIE same **** different day
Find me a lawyer that can prove that the floods were created by the Australian coal mines in question- or any for that matter. Im not saying mining as a whole doesnt have environmental impacts- they do, but to lay a weather event at the feet of a few is pure stupidity.Airgead said:Ahhhh... The Australian... for real whacked out purist dribble...
But in response - why not? If the floods are linked to climate change caused by burning coal, why not make them pay for it? if i accidentally light a fire and it burns someones house down, they can quite rightly sue me for damages. At the moment, companies don't pay for a lot of the environmental damage they cause (the economic tern is externalities) and they should.At the moment, companies privatise profits and socialise risk because government s (and by extension taxpayers) pay to clean up after them.
You make a mess, you pay to clean it up. I have no problem with that.
ahh fraudbandgoomboogo said:Does this mean Turnbull can drop the facade of the past several years and admit he sold out on the NBN? Can we now have a Prime Minister who has at least heard of the internet and is prepared to commit to a 21st century network?
I love him as education minister......Repeat this phrase in your head, but in Chris's voice (not mine, which is obviously an earthy baritone that would make the bowels of Barry White tremble when I hit the low notes) and try and tell me you couldn't hear it coming out of his mouth.sponge said:I'd prefer if it was Christopher Pyne..
Sorry I could'nt help but giggle a little at this. A lawyer? up against the highest payed lawyers owned by the biggest wealthiest most powerful heavy polluters? No chance.Droopy Brew said:Find me a lawyer that can prove that the floods were created by the Australian coal mines in question.
Wwwwwweeeeeeeeellllllllll.........At the risk of opening a completely different can of worms, and as some one who has had the super fast fibre speeds and now has the decent enough fixed wireless speeds, and also has gone back to hauling fibre to the premise due to the new rates which are particularly attractive if you can work a crew of monkeys well enough...........At what price (and I'm talking real dollars here) do you value this 21st century network to be rolled out right now? Seeing as the majority of premises I'm a part of connecting are domestic, and get to see what's invoiced for the work just to get from pit to premise....... never mind the backbone behind that, I really have to wonder with the speeds my fixed wireless connection gets (slightly faster than ADSL) if its worth spending all this coin to connect domestic situations where realistically ADSL speeds aren't currently holding back your life in any significant way.goomboogo said:Does this mean Turnbull can drop the facade of the past several years and admit he sold out on the NBN? Can we now have a Prime Minister who has at least heard of the internet and is prepared to commit to a 21st century network?
Who's nextMHB said:Tony Who?
Plenty of goodies in store for him mate.spog said:Haven't read the post's on this topic but here's hopping the Tony never hired a helicopter or drove a train otherwise this thread will be the same as Goodbye Bronwyn's , 80 pages and 1580 replies !
But,as I understand it no Prime Minister goodies for him,that's an immediate saving of 660 k per year for Australia,thank **** .
Please continue.
I question the cost involved to supply a large section of the country with speeds that are realistically only going to be used for home entertainment. I have no issue with the network being put in place to provide business' that require that speed to get their job done.goomboogo said:Jim, you can't measure future potential unrealised against the benchmarks of today. We can't know now what the future will hold if more people have access to higher quality internet connections. Twenty-five years ago, most people couldn't envision the internet we have today. The full benefit of the highest quality internet service is not something we can conceive of right now. But in twenty-five years we'll live in a time that has requirements that exceed what we imagine right now, those requirements will be.
In terms of cost, you say can we afford it? Conversely, can we afford not to do it? We should never lose sight of the fact that no sovereign government in control of a fiat currency is revenue constrained.
I question the cost involved in building roads that I will never drive on.jlm said:I question the cost involved to supply a large section of the country with speeds that are realistically only going to be used for home entertainment.
Enter your email address to join: