Jump to content

bootlegapparel

Platinum Member
  • Content count

    753
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About bootlegapparel

  • Rank
    f

General Info

  • Location
    Australia NSW
  • Gender
    Male
  • Car Type
    Mazda
  • Car Model
    Mazda
  1. while this is true, the same arguments apply. We shouldn't protect dying industries. We should take this opportunity either to take advantage of the new internet market, or, to innovate and create new business models. Like you said, most of these businesses are either no-skill or low-skill work. We shouldn't want this work. Great economies are built of innovation and creation.
  2. Well, the idea is to have innovation, the creation of new and better industries. It's the luddites all over again. One outdated industry with a HUGE workforce gets squeezed out, a lot of people complain, but society makes progress, new industries, technologies, and jobs are created out of necessity, and everybody benefits. If we try and hold back the rest of the world will pass us by and when we do eventually have to let go of a dying industry it will hit us all the harder. I would like to see the massive retail complexes in every suburb gone. It would be much smarter to have a single boutique showroom store say in each major city. You check out the gear in the showroom if you want to touch it. It's simply no longer necessary to have massive westfield shopping malls these days.
  3. what do you mean? I mean that the internet, global markets, unimpeded competition, and the advantages that this system gives is being held back by dinosaur business practices that refuse to adapt to the modern world. The advantage of the internet is not just to the consumer with cheaper prices, it's going to have massive knock on effects: 1. Cheaper prices mean more individual goods purchased. Meaning more money to the people ACTUALLY CREATING THE GOODS, rather than useless middle men, and useless sales staff. This means, quicker progress in whatever the technology is. e.g. computers, tvs, phones, etc. 2. Consumers have greater power and influence over what goods are successful, and more importantly, small time goods can be more successful this way, leading to new innovations getting the recognition they deserve. 3. Transport - the huge volumes of posted goods are going to drive innovation in the transport sector, better and more economical ways of transporting large volumes of goods around the world.
  4. Why does everyone think our roads are shit? I've driven a lot around the southern side of NSW, and from Sydney to Canberra quite a lot, the roads aren't shit, they used to be, but a lot of upgrade work has been undertaken. yeah, sure, there are some shitty areas around, but in general, the roads aren't much worse than europe.
  5. Dark Souls 2

    I'm a huge fan of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. They're the only games I've actually played and finished in the current gen of games (ps3). But I really don't like the direction the trailer was going, and a sequel? Seems out of form. Will wait and see though, will probably buy it anyway
  6. $70 for an MK808B (bluetooth) with a wireless keyboard/mouse
  7. Responsibility really doesn't matter unless we're out for vengence. What we should concentrate on, is WHY this occurred, and HOW can we stop it in the future. Should there be a change in radio culture? Or should there be greater support for people afflicted with depression? Is this really the fault of a shitty radio station? Or is it a failure of society to fully accept and openly discuss mental illness.
  8. This is true for everyone though. Christians believe that they're smarter than everyone else because they "know the truth" and will be saved. Athiests are arrogant because everyone else is too dumb to realise. Agnostics are arrogant because everyone else is dumb for arguing. No matter where you fall, there's always a group of people who are arrogant because they're confident in what they think. This is more due to the large discrepency in ideas than anything else. It's simply a case of no matter which one you pick, a large number of other people become immediately wrong. This is pretty rare in the world. If: Atheists are right 90% of people in the world are wrong. Agnostics are right, everyone in the world is wrong (agnostics are generally the smuggest group) Christians are right ~50% of the world is wrong. Jews are right 90% of the world is wrong Muslims are right ~50% of the world is wrong. There's no other issue so dividing, that's why people are so arrogant, because the stakes are high and they're really confident. If we were talking about say, bigfoot, nobody is really that arrogant, because chances are you're on the 99.99% side of things that says bigfoot is bullshit, there's nothing to gain by being 100% proven right.
  9. I've gotten over hating fads/fashion/music. It's not worth it. While you're sitting there getting the shits and being in a pissy mood because of the music, everyone else is having fun. I'd rather be having fun and just not caring. Switch your brain off, chill out, and just don't care.
  10. That is more of a courtsey thing if you look at the rules on merging if there is a dotted line the merging traffic have to give way to the other lane. But if it just ends it is who ever is in front has right of way but nobody cares anyway as you get dicks that will go out of the lane they are in and slip up the merging lane to skip 1 or two cars if i see anyone do that i refuse to let them in This is a big problem with merging and f**ks with the flow of traffic constantly. Merging lanes 9/10 times is what causes heavy, stop start traffic. The rule is that whoever is in front, if they put their blinker on to merge you must let them in. But you're right, what about those *milkshakes* who drive up a banked line of traffic then try and merge in at the last second?
  11. Interesting point. If "nothing" were truly possible. Then in that "nothing" causality wouldn't exist, because causality is "something".
  12. I have to read his book, but from talks he's done he was talking about virtual particles in a vacuum. A vacuum is still something. I think he's talking about how it's really f**king cool, and a possible explanation is that nthing is unstable, which I tend to agree with, but it's not been tested or proven, and is just all hypothesis at the moment.
  13. "the "big bang theory" is actually a theory of what happened AFTER the existence of the universe/singularity. It does not and never did say "first there was nothing then it exploded and big bang tadaa!" "Nothing" literally nothing, as far as we know, does not exist, it might not even be possible to exist, if the concept of "nothing" is actually impossible, the idea of creation, in any sense, either by god or some physical laws, becomes non-sensical. The big bang theory is a model of the early universe, not an explanation of how the universe was first "created" in any sense." The better answer is
×