JohnB

Tetra, I must disagree with this. In the past 30 odd years we have had three major Labour Governments. Whitlam, Hawke and Keating. Interest rates, unemployment and inflation got extremely high under all three. (And Keating gave us "The Recession we had to have".) The odds were greatly in favour of history repeating itself. As an aside, those I know were not so much against Mark Latham, but if we got him, we got Simon Crean as Treasurer, and that seemed to scare the hell out of them. Concerning Pauline, (I'm a Queenslander) I think the main reason for her support (which as you say was mostly from the rural sector) was simply that they didn't like Labour and felt the Nationals had sold them out. You'll note that Pauline didn't get up in the Senate for Queensland. The other part was that there was such a scream against her, and the tactics used were so dispicable, it almost became a point of honour to piss off the southerners. You know what we're like. The more groups in Sydney and Melbourne screamed "You can't do that", the more Queenslanders felt that we should, just to show you. Of course, after that first election, we had made our point, (and One Nation) were so bloody inept) so we felt quite safe in getting rid of them. I kind of like the Compulsory voting. At least, maybe, people might think about things. (Although there is always the "Donkey vote" ) It concerns me that if voting was voluntary, we would see Australian politics split into camps like the yanks are. I really wouldn't like to see our politics descend to the depths of "debate" of the last US election. It's come close sometimes, but that is more the exception rather than the rule. I think voluntary would actually benefit the left rather than right for the simple reason that only the left side has a ready made organised powerbase, the Unions. This is a fair block of people who can be mobilised, I can't really think of any similar conservative group. The CWA and the like possibly, but their influence is severely limited. The biggest problem with our system is that you don't need more than 50% of the vote to win. You only need just over 50% of the vote in just over 50% of the seats. This problem works against both parties. In a recent Qld election, the Libs got some 30% of the vote, but won only about 3 seats. I think the whole thing needs an overhaul, but so far haven't heard any really workable suggestions. Before you get too hot about Howard invading someone, I suggest you go back through the demands of Kim Beazley, Opposition Leader at the time of the Timor Crisis. He demanded at the time that Australian troops enter ET before getting approval from the Indonesian Government. Australian combat troops landing in a Province of a Sovereign Nation without the permission of said nation? That sounds like an invasion to me. Actually, it sounds like an Act of War. If Beazley had been PM, we would have been at war with Indonesia. Big nation, big military, where the hell would we put that many POW's?

We also had 10% unemployment, Home Loan Interest Rates at 17%, Inflation in the double digits and a great big Deficit. At least now, more people can get jobs. Tetra, I think you and I must be at the opposite ends of our political spectrum. Won't stop me from agreeing with Labour occasionally though. I don't agree with the full sale of Telstra for example, I just don't see how it could be good for the nation. (Especially when Telstra defines 14.4k internet as "adequate". They have got to be joking.) The problem is that Labour couldn't run a Lemonade Stand in the Simpson Desert, hence they run up huge debts to cover their policies. On the other side, the Liberals are far better economic managers, but sometimes they forget that pure numbers don't tell all the story. I would like to see some sort of "middle" party, combining the best points of both. I, personally, would vote for a party made up of housewives. They have a heart and they can balance a budget. Of course, telling the Navy they can't have a new Destroyer "Because I said so, that's why" may cause some problems. The main issue I have with Labour is the Union involvement. The Unions, who represent only some 19% of the workforce have 60% say in the formulation of party policy. Said formation being binding on all Labour pollies. I feel this is undemocratic and unfair to the grassroots party members. It also means that under a Labour government, the Representatives we vote for are not the Government. The true government is the unelected Caucus controlled by unions. The Liberal's executive can only advise the Parlimentary wing as to policy.

If a complete tyro may make a comment? Yourdads question seems to me to be similar to the one in Astronomy. "If the Universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?" The difficulty in the answer and the understanding thereof is a matter of conceptualization. It is hard to concieve of there being an "edge" to the Universe without there being something on the other side of the "edge". Likewise it is hard to concieve of two things being coexistant but separate. There is also the matter of perspective. If we were to consider the classical "Flatlander" in a two dimensional world. We could have an infinite number of these worlds stacked on top of each other, but, since their third dimension is zero the stack has no height. They are hence coexistant. From the perspective of the inhabitants of each of these worlds, their Universe is complete and total. From the perspective of a three demensional being though, all of the worlds are separate and at the same time coexistant. I do realise that this is not an accurate representation of what I feebly grasp of what I've read, but thinking of it that way stops my brain dribbling out my ears.

There also seems to be a culture, in Oz at least, of not telling it as it is. We are told of an "Obesity Epidemic" this means that a persons lack of self control is now a "disease" and therefore the Doctors problem. We have people going to the media "My 14 year old son/daughter weighs 20 stone. We need help to find a cure." I long for the day when someone says "Your kid weighs 20 stone because they eat like a pig with both trotters in the trough. 400 grams of potato chips and three Big Macs is not a light snack. Get off your lazy fat arse and get some exercise." NB. The above is not meant to reflect on those who do have medical conditions that lead to obesity. There is simply a difference between having a disease and having no self control.

Blike, you must be in a better position than we are. I was serious about the drug addict bit. It is almost impossible to get struck off down here. Even if you are, it doesn't really count if you move interstate. The point was made some time ago down here during a debate on Doctor's Insurance that about 8% of Doctors are responsible for some 80% of the litigation cases. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. The point was raised and then studiously ignored. To be fair, it is certainly possible that the 8% were involved in areas where people are more likely to sue them. Also, by the same token, how many people die each year in the US because of "Medical Mistakes"? You have to feel sorry for Doctors and Airline Pilots, one mistake somebody dies. The stress must be horrendous.

Sayonara, the 10 million was a guess. We are talking an area (both North and South Korea) about the size of 2 US states. A combined population of over 70 million people. Seoul alone has a population of over 10 million. A nuclear exchange on the Korean peninsula with say 4 bombs hitting Seoul? I don't think that 10 million is too far out of the ballpark, but it is just a guess. Tetra, my point was that it is simply better to not have a war when you know the civillian casualties would be in the millions. It has nothing to do with only attacking those you can beat. It has to do with not being willing to sacrifice that many innocent people. I notice that you throw the word "illegal" around, you are aware that the intervention in the Bosnian crisis was also "illegal"? As would any intervention in Sudan without the express request of the Sudanese Government? You are aware that if a government were to set up gas chambers and start wholesale slaughter, provided they do not interfere with their neighbours, the UN is powerless to intervene? They may impose sanctions, but that is all. So long as the slaughter is kept as a purely internal event, the UN Charter forbids the UN from taking military action. Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraph 7. "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter;" Sometimes "illegal" is "moral". I just wish it didn't have to be that way.

Mind you, some of us Australians also realise that no matter who is the US President, we are targets. We are the "Crusading Australians" Bin Laden referred to. We helped East Timor, that was a large enough crime in the eyes of terrs, to make us a bigger target. Some Aussies unfortunately seem to believe that if we do nothing then we will never be attacked. This is a false hope. The whole point of religious extremist terrorists is to convert the entire world to their way of thinking. What a nation does or does not do merely moves them up or down the hit list. Only be complete surrender can you be removed from the list. We did not surrender to the Japanese 60 years ago, we will not surrender today. I found this on a Submariner Website. THE SPIRIT OF OZ You hurt us bombing Bali, but we can take the pain, But if you think you'll beat us you can think a-bloody-gain We battled at Gallipoli and we fought the bloody hun Of all the arseholes we've had to face you're just another one You won't get your hands dirty, you won't fire a gun Whenever danger threatens you just pack your gear and run You brainwash innocent children to do your evil deeds Careful not to let them know just where it really leads You get them to believe all your bigotry and lying Until they cannot see that there's no glory in their dying Now we'd like to pose a question, answer if you can Where does your holy book tell you to kill your fellow man? Now listen hard and listen well, we're giving you the word You're never gonna beat us you spineless bloody turd You'd never face us personally you haven't got the guts You know that if you ever did we'd have your bloody nuts Our spirit is unbroken, and our heads are still unbowed We sure as hell aren't scared of you and your gutless crowd So get your act together -- you'll never win because What you're really up against is the spirit that is OZ. Author unknown

budullewraagh, (BTW, how the hell do you pronounce that?) it is correct to say that Bush, or Clinton for that matter, are not responsible for terrorist acts. The ones responsible are the terrorists. The old "See what you are making us do. If you just gave in to our demands, no-one would be hurt, so it's really you who are killing them not us" argument is wearing extremely thin. Only the armed robber is responsible for his act, only the murderer is responsible for his act, likewise only the terrorist is responsible for his act.

Perhaps the truth is that the solution to a problem depends on the problem. Direct military confrontation in Korea has a very good chance of nukes being used. You may be willing to accept perhaps 10 million deaths, but most others would not. Hence Diplomacy is probably the best option. Iran has a growing Democratic movement and will probably change in the relatively near future. So pressure on the Government while encouraging Democratic reform is a good option. Sudan, the UN has that in hand in it's usual inimitable multi lateral fashion. There will be a complete investigation by the Commision on Human Rights. Should there appear to be anything wrong, they will probably send a severe note to the Sudanese Government. See, with the UN on the job, there is no need for the US to do anything.

We have a similar problem in Oz. One part of the equation that is never mentioned is this. "How many incompetent Doctors are still practicing?" Do you get many struck off for incompetence? Down here they can be bloody drug addicts and still be allowed to practice. A final thought, "What do you call the person who graduates Medical College with the lowest possible pass mark?" Doctor. Does that give you confidence?

One that didn't work out. In Brisbane we have the "Seven Hills College of Advanced Education". It was intended at one point to rename it to bring it in line with the "Queensland Institute of Technology" and similar places of learning. All was set for the change to "Seven Hills Institute of Technology" until someone realised what initials would be on the front gate in 2 foot high letters.

I did that Google and found it interesting. All of the debunkers links I followed attacked the man. Not one disputed his maths or predictions. That normally only happens when the opposition can't refute the claims. An idea should stand or fall on it's merits and maths, not be judged by who puts it forward.

florigen= flowering hormone groan

Pangloss, my apologies, you are correct. I must have misheard the figure. I was listening to a BBC program some time ago and the figure must have stuck the wrong way round. Then again, people say my head is often wrong way round, so maybe that's it. I still believe my prediction to be correct though. According to the 2000 census quoted by NBC, there were 19,000,000 more boys than girls in the 0-15 age group. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508/ If we add to that, that according to china.org surveys some 40% of Chinese women (granted the survey seems to have been in the cities only) do not intend to have children. http://www.china.org.cn/english/Life/92001.htm There are already a number of "Batchelor Villages" in China, this number will increase. So here's the question "What happens to the economy when these men die and there is no population there?" In a normal economy, as people age they are replaced in a semi gradual process. In China, this won't happen. A large number of the workforce will drop out by old age or death in a relatively short period of time and there will be no-one to replace them. That is what will cause the disaster.

There is a common misconception that the Mayas etc didn't invent the wheel. The evidence is that they did, but with the topography of the land and only oxen to pull the carts, it would have been more trouble than it's worth to make the roads for the carts to travel on. I've read most of Hancock's books and find them interesting and thought provoking.

Weren't ablative cocoons considered originally as life boats for the ISS? I seem to remember reading something about it yonks ago. It looked like a large, elongated red blood cell. The air supply wasn't a problem as the evacuee was in a full EVA suit.

Or they may not be, and Hoagland may be right. It's an amazing coincidence that so many things happen at the same latitude on so many planets, isn't it? No, I'm not a devotee, but his arguments are compelling and his predictions for the north pole of Saturn were accurate.

Ophiolite, you do realise that the scenario you put forward vitually ensures that the Universe is full of life? I fully agree with you by the way.

And they did it so well that they had to build a great big wall to stop all the Westerners flooding into the USSR. If the path to "true" Communism requires that you kill anyone who tries to leave (NB, they tried to leave, not rebel.) then you have to ask if the destination is really worth it. Do you actually know anybody that lived under that system? I would think not if you any words of praise for that degenerate, debilitating and inhumane system. The sheer viciousness of the USSR's system is almost impossible for a westerner to believe. But I know the people, I have seen the scars, I have heard their stories. I believe. As to China. If it does become a "Superpower", and it already is from some points of view, it's life will be short, and it's end disasterous. The Communist Party has sown the seeds of destruction and it is now far too late to stop it. Consider the implications of these two facts. 1. China has a one child policy. 2. Male children are viewed as more valuable than females. These two things have resulted in only about 15% of babies being female. The vast majority of Chinese men will now never marry or have children. In about 40 years, the death rate will so outstrip the birth rate that the nation will suffer economic collapse. China has a middle class of 300 million? So what? Only 45 million of them will marry and have children. One child. 300 million this generation, 45 million the next. Social and economic collapse. One way or another Communism = Failure.

Interesting proposition. Since it is known that the world was warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today, exactly what polluting vehicles were the Vikings using?

And I hope you're very glad that Queen Isabella didn't think that way. We may be on the dawn of a new age, but we must be realistic. The next explorers will not be like Cook or Magellan, our technology is far too primitive for that. For a paralell we must look further back. Back to when Ugh first used a log to find out what was on the other side of the river. And I'll bet that there were people then who argued that he was wasting valuable firewood.

feature= main movie Groovy

I'm not sure that too amny parachutes would be needed. The factor not mentioned so far is "Terminal Velocity". For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if you jump from 500 feet or 5,000 feet. The Terminal Velocity is the same, about 120 mph if in a spreadeagled position. Rather than thinking of air resistance, we can think of the air attempting to slow the falling body to terminal velocity. I suppose the question would be, how fast would the air slow you down? In an ideal case, ignoring the thickness of the atmosphere and heat, the falling person would be slowed at an ever increasing rate until their speed dropped to TV. How quickly would they slow down? And how much heat would be generated? Once the person hits TV, even if 10 miles up, it should become the same as any other parachute jump. I hope.

kiss=pucker sucker