Jump to content

sweepa

Standard Member
  • Content count

    135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by sweepa

  1. Everyone always seems to like a good religious/race related debate, so.... As you've probably seen in the news over the last day or so rioting has broken out world wide with Muslims "protesting" (?????) a rather crappy film about the prophet Mohammed. (riots in Sydney) http://youtu.be/3ZrNcEoAusw (and the film they are "protesting") http://youtu.be/qmodVun16Q4 Anyways, the violence seems to be sparking worldwide debate as to what can be done and many asking the question, "should ALL Muslims be deported back to Muslim countries"? Can two different cultures with such diametrically opposed ideologies ever peacefully coexist or are we just setting ourselves up for more violence and bloodshed? http://youtu.be/E3MLZChHP5Y interested to hear peoples opinions. Go.....
  2. You should check out aws beanstalk while your at it. (amazons own paas service), makes setting up and scaling things even easier.
  3. Social Media Marketing

    ^^ +1 Also your sales copy is rubbish (something you'd assume is important for someone in marketing) Theres no examples of the services you provide nor is there any real sales funnel or call to action, once again something that one would think would be important to someone in marketing. Not trying to be an arseholl, just saying if you want this venture to succed you have to look professional and right now you don't. you are also going to want to establish yourself as an authority before anyone will take you seriously.
  4. Ban on high powered magnets

    ^^ +1 I really can't see how a butterlfy knife is really any more dangerous than something like a kitchen knife or a pocket knife/leatherman etc. Any of these will kill you just as dead.
  5. Ban on high powered magnets

    This seems appropriate here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/humans-getting-dumber-stanford-study_n_2121823.html and the actual study http://bmi205.stanford.edu/_media/crabtree-2.pdf The short version: The human race is getting stupider because natural selection is not being allowed to take place in modern society.
  6. So there's this story on news.com.au So what does everyone think, are you for it, against it, are we becoming to Americanized? P.S. just for educational purposes P.P.S. LOL at the priests in this article, nice to see Christians making such sane and rational arguments as always
  7. The Nanny State Debate

    Hmmm, I think the whole nanny state debate is about 10 years to late, we're well past the point of being a nanny state and are now well on our way to becoming a full blown police state.
  8. Knee-jerk reaction to a non-problem of speed Miranda Devine The Daily Telegraph October 10, 2012 12:00AM YOU know if 80 per cent of people are disobeying a law, it's probably the law that needs fixing rather than the people. But in these illiberal times, we ramp up the punishment. So when a Macquarie University study this month found that 70 to 80 per cent of drivers break the 40km/h speed limit when entering school zones, the usual call went up for more speed cameras and tougher fines. This is the solution to every road safety issue from the robotic RTA now uselessly rebadged as Roads and Maritime Services. But tomorrow a former RTA engineer will spill the beans on the failed logic and wasted money behind the state's War on Speed which has had negligible impact on safety, and may in fact provoke a psychological backlash among motorists. Lex Stewart, RTA road safety manager between 1990 and 1997, will tell the Australian Institute of Traffic and Planning conference at Luna Park that better road safety comes from "flowing with" rather than going against "innate human psychology". He says the number of road deaths has barely budged over the past decade as ever more drastic penalties have been enforced on motorists. School speed zones are an example of a kneejerk reaction to a non problem that has diverted resources from more pressing safety issues. "All this huge money spent (on school zones) has had very small benefit because there never were any significant numbers of children killed or injured near schools in the first place," he said. He counters the argument that any price is worth saving a life by saying that if money is diverted from programs that could save 50 lives, "all that we have achieved is to kill 49 people". Five police highway patrol officers he interviewed for his paper complained that school zones were being "forced" on them and were difficult to enforce, diverting police attention away from more pressing issues such as bike helmets. Stewart advocates scrapping all 40km/h school speed zones and instead employing more school crossing supervisors trained as special constables with the power to enforce 50 or 60km/h limits. "They can also talk to children, educating them in road safety, something that cameras cannot do." He said Australian authorities were "unusually obsessed" with speeding, at the risk of underemphasising the dangers of drunk driving or driving without a seatbelt. Speed cameras were "purely punitive, not educational" he said. "We need to ask those obsessed with speed cameras why Germany, with no speed limit at all on its autobahns, has a fatality rate of 0.7, which is substantially better than NSW's 0.9 and Australia's 0.8." The NSW Auditor-General's report into speed cameras last year was a "damning indictment of RTA incompetence and arrogance". The report found 70 per cent of submissions viewed cameras as revenue raisers, and only 28 per cent of cameras produced statistically significant improvements in road safety." "It is far more effective to use roving highway patrol officers." When he was in charge of road safety in 90 per cent of the state west of Lithgow, Stewart wanted every motorist to see a blue flashing light on their travels. He told police in his patch that if a driver is travelling at 112km/h in a 110 zone you pull him over, and "have a chat", about the inadvisability of breaking the speed limit, the hazards of fatigue and the whereabouts of the closest rest stop is. Then you send him on his way without a ticket. This way the community is involved in taking responsibility for driving safely. While politicians and bureaucrats "piously" rail against speeding, claiming it is the No.1 road safety problem, "there is little hard data to back them up", he said. By contrast, the data on drink driving is accurate, since blood samples are taken from people involved in a crash, and tell us that alcohol is involved in 21 per cent of road deaths and 19 per cent of crashes. Similarly, failure to wear a seatbelt (or a helmet) resulted in 12 per cent of deaths. But the official line that "up to 40 per cent" of crashes are caused by excessive speed is a guess, Stewart said, based on insufficient scientific evidence, flawed data and inadequate police accident reports. Stewart is all for bringing down speeds where appropriate, such as in residential areas where reducing the speed limit from 60 to 50km/h means less damage if a car hits a bike or pedestrian. But the blanket assault on speed is absurd: "Why not make all speed limits 10km/h?" Stewart is not just a critic. He has a lot of worthwhile solutions, including the introduction of a fairer "merit" scheme of 100 points, and speeding fines scaled more logically. He advocates removing 90 per cent of speed cameras and putting the money into more highway patrol officers, encouraged to have frequent interactions with drivers in an educational/warning role. One officer plus car costs about $200,000. If he books four people per shift then the fines reap the state $200,000. They are "close to being self-funding". he said. "Why the reluctance to employ more?" He would also erect lots more speed limit "reassurance" signs so drivers know how fast they can go, increase driver education and require new cars to have black box recorders so the role of speed, fatigue and so on can be assessed. Stewart's ideas, backed by his experience at the front line, are well worth heeding. But Roads Minister Duncan Gay, who will open the conference this morning, did not respond to Stewart's offer to view his paper. Gay went into office a champion of motorists, opposed to punitive fines and cameras. But like every minister before him, he is now captured by his department and addicted to the revenue. http://www.dailytele...0-1226492352854 While I don't necessarily agree or like all of his assertions, it's a step in the right direction and much better than the usual rhetoric that most politician sprout off about.
  9. some comments off the dickheads facebook page. continued...
  10. Lol, spenda, I like that. When I suggested mounting a legal challenge I wasn't really suggesting trying to pay for it out of your own pocket but rather (if the lawyers say there is a way to contest them) looking more towards some sort of class action or getting people to donate to help fund the case. especially from businesses that could be affected by reduced spending on modifying cars. Realistically, long term it's going to cost money to have any real impact in fighting these types of laws. When you look at how most successful lobby groups operate (such as the ACL, Pedestrian Council of Australia etc) they are very well funded and have the ability to launch legal battles, advertising/PR campaigns and "political donations" to politicians who will represent their wishes in parliament. These are proper registered non-profit organizations that are run like businesses, they have boards of directors, full time paid staff and lawyers and PR people on the books. Some of these organizations can raise hundreds of thousand if not millions of dollars from donations (quite often a large chunk of that coming from corporate sponsors or religious institutions) so that they can campaign in the interests of their contributors. We need to learn from these examples and look at instituting something similar over the long term. Now back to the problem at hand. Had a quick look on some other car forums, doesn't seem like anyone is talking about this so it seems that it is pretty much flying under the radar. as I spoke about in my last post, online petitions and things like that are usually a good viral mechanism for getting the word out even if politicians largely tend to ignore them. here are some options https://www.change.org/en-AU or http://www.ipetitions.com/ Try and aim to get over 100,000 signatures and encourage people to spread the word to reach that goal. Setting up a facebook page is usually a good way of getting things to spread quickly. Political analysts also seem very fond of judging the political climate by looking at twitter trends (because apparently EVERYBODY is on twitter and so opinions there represent the entire public), so doing the whole twitter hash tag thing might be another good option. I also noted the dudes youtube videos are open for comments. go nuts Now as to how to frame the argument against the proposed laws. Much of the general public has been brainwashed by the media and politicians into thinking that all car enthusiast are a bunch of reckless dickheads who are involved in criminal activities and enjoy putting the public at risk, thus they deserve everything they get. Trying to get sympathy from the public is not going to work so we need to learn a lesson from our politicians and apply a bit of 'spin'. Don't make it an issue about car enthusiast, make it an issue about 'oppressive government' and the degradation and erosion of our justice system. Argue that such discretionary powers are an affront to everything our legal system was built upon (the presumption of innocence, burden of proof, clear definitions of what constitutes an illegal act, fair trial etc) and that the government is trying to turn QLD into a police state. Make them look like the oppressive bad guy at every opportunity. Identify as many examples of government oppression as possible to throw at them and make them look bad. Especially examples of things that people outside of the car community can identify with. This will help garner much more public sympathy and support.
  11. ah, I remember when I use to be that naive.... Ok ok, I'll try and refrain from being a cynical asshole and try and add something constructive. What NOT to do.... 1. Don't waste your time with protests, the chances of you getting a significant number to turn up are slim and you'll probably come off looking like a joke. (see the 100 or so threads over on the whirlpool forum about the internet filter and their attempts at trying to organize protests - 20 people turning up and the cops laughing at them). Apathy in Australia is a bitch. 2. Don't waste your time writing emails/letters to these politicians, you'll just get some bullshit form letter as a reply and they probably won't even read what you wrote. And at the end of the day they really don't care if they piss you off. your a minority!!!! What they care about is the conservative ACA loving baby boomer crowd that make up such a large part of the electorate. And vilifying and discriminating against minorities is a good way at winning that vote. 3. Don't expect the mainstream media to take up the fight for you. They don't like you, in fact they hate you. So don't waste your time trying to appeal to them either. Most probably you won't just be fighting the government on this but you'll be fighting the mainstream media too. 4. Don't waste time debating things on forums, it always just turns into a bunch of people arguing about bullshit. What TOO do... By the sound of it you only have a very limited time before this goes through so here's some ideas given the short time frame available (no guarantees this will work). 1. Try and copy what the bikies are doing to fight the "anti bikie" anti association laws, speak with some lawyers and see if there is a way to actually contest the laws themselves in the high/supreme courts, (obviously yous will have to try and raise money to launch such a legal battle). since many of these types of laws don't require the police to meet any sort of burden of proof and they impose some very harsh penalties maybe the courts will throw them out as being unjust. Or maybe the sanctity of property could be raised as an issue. A lawyer will be able to tell you what options there are much better than me and the first consultation is usually free at most law firms, so it's worth a shot, who knows... 2. If you want to try and write letters I'd suggest focusing on minor parties (who have a civil liberties agenda e.g. greens, sex party, LDP, secular party, pirate party etc) and try your luck with them, these sort of parties are always looking for ways to increase there support base and so may look to help aid in the fight. Not sure what they may be able to do exactly but it's be worth a shot to find out and it never hurts to have more supporters for your cause. Probably also want to look at civil liberties groups such as http://www.cla.asn.au/ and http://www.qccl.org.au/. Once again don't know what they can do but it's worth a shot. There is also the National Motorists Association Australia (NMAA) http://www.aussiemotorists.com/, but I think they're largely defunct now. 3. Find allies, unify causes, offer to help support other causes in turn for supporting yours/ours. 4. Try and organize some sort of viral campaign to villafy the government (with limited time and budget this is probably your best shot), something like the "No clean feed" against internet filtering or "internet blackout" against SOPA as some examples. Youtube videos, website banners, on-line petitions (yeah they don't really do anything politically but they still seem to help spread the word), stickers (like the famous Dick Johnson "don't ban high performance cars, ban low performance drivers" campaign), t-shirts etc. Try and encourage people to get creative and fight fire with fire. Or in this case. propaganda with propaganda. If they vilify us as 'hoons', vilify the government as a bunch of freedom hating Nazi's and vilify the media as being full of shit. 5. Take LEADERSHIP!!! This is by far the most important point. Don't expect this to work as a collaborative effort because in the end what will happen is you'll just get a bunch of people who sit around and argue over semantics and nothing will get done, (Just look at the responses in this thread and see the way it's headed already as an example of this). At some point someone has to stand up and take leadership. Say "this is my idea, this is my plan and this is what I am going to do. If you want to support me, great! This is how you can do that". Nothing will get done without leadership... Anyways I am sick of typing, I'm off to watch some porn before the government takes that away too.
  12. So you've probably seen that general dude on the news talking about the fact that we've really achieved nothing in Afghanistan and that it's time to bring our troops home before anymore get killed. Our politicians seem to disagree, they say there has been change and that we should stay the course. So what do you think, has anything changed? is the world any safer now? Are our politicians a bunch of murderers who put profits ahead of people's lives? and is it time to bring our troops home? Go....
  13. to a certain extent that's true, if your bi you can sort of pick if your in the mood or some cock or some vag tonight, but it's kind of a different argument. But to suggest that someone could just pick a side if they're bi for the purposes of appeasing government regulations is a pretty flawed argument. You can't really control who you'll fall in love with or who you develop a connection with just because your a switch hitter. And even if you did pick a side to appease government regulations wouldn't that be devaluing the meaning of marriage anyway.
  14. but you still don't get a say in whether your bi or not. people don't choose to be born bi.
  15. I've read it, and there is nothing there that proves choice. even if they are bi, it doesn't mean they have a choice in weather or not they are bi p.s And you are the one that made the statement so it is 'your job' to do the homework to provide evidence to support it. why the hell would I look it up trying to prove your point for you.
  16. How? by calling out a bullshit artist? Which reminds me you still haven't shown how the Kinsey scale proves people have a choice in their sexual orientation.
  17. I'm the sad case? let's examine what we know about you then shall we? either A: you really are a religious fan boy who is now trying to pretend that he is not because he is too weak and feeble minded to stick by his convictions... or B: you lied because you 'thought' you were being 'clever' somehow and god only know what you think you proved. either way its the actions of a rather sad and pathetic individual.
  18. Really??? It's been PROVEN???? Care to elaborate and back up that statement with some evidence? You've really never heard of Kinsey and his research 50 years ago? Over 180,000 people extensively interviewed and it was the largest sex survey ever conducted. There's been many many studies done since which confirm his findings. I've heard of it, it still doesn't demonstrate in any way shape or form that people would have anymore 'choice' in there sexual orientation.
  19. Says the guy who wastes his time praying to his magic spaceman.
  20. I'm on the same page as the troll I don't care if they can or they can't doesn't bother me at all I think the world has bigger issues to worry about And this "I don't care, it doesn't affect me" attitude is exactly why the world is going to shit. oh my god, the worlds ruined, it was so much better when i was younger, everythings shit now, everythings a conspiracy, everyone else is an idiot wah wah wah shutup Yeah, and I bet your the type of person who when some really bullshit law comes into place that does affect you, will be straight on here whinging "aww that's bullshit! they can't do that". so
  21. I'm on the same page as the troll I don't care if they can or they can't doesn't bother me at all I think the world has bigger issues to worry about And this "I don't care, it doesn't affect me" attitude is exactly why the world is going to shit.
  22. sounds more like they're confused. Really??? It's been PROVEN???? Care to elaborate and back up that statement with some evidence?
  23. actually marriage predates all the popular modern religions so they really have no claim to it when it comes to defining the terms of marriage.
  24. My god this thread is making my head hurt... for steve.p, harris and wrexy
  25. protesting is for chumps, you'll never affect any real change that way. Funny, most public opinion polls seem to show the majority of the public support it.
×