I have nothing to write about. Normally, my brain is frothing with ideas that demand to be written down. It didn't froth today, and it didn't froth yesterday, and it hasn't frothed much since I got the flu. My temperature went up when I got the flu, and I could feel my brain shifting down a few gears. I spent some time at work today, staring at some stuff and trying (and failing) to figure it out. Normally, I look at stuff and answers just blast into my brain. Not today. Just wasn't interested.
Funnily enough, I woke up at 3am on day 3 of the flu with the most amazing string of ideas going through my head. I'd been running a fever all day, and suddenly it broke in the wee hours of the morning and from that point on, my brain was on fire. I woke up with the most vivid flow of stuff pouring through my head, and it kept on going for about an hour after that. I was sorely tempted to get up and write it down, but sheer exhuastion kept me stuck to the sheets (along with a puddle of sweat). Before long, I felt this great gush of ideas petering out, and then they started to fade.
By morning, I couldn't remember a damned thing. All I could remember was the fact that I had an hour of amazing thoughts, and that it was now all gone.
So you've missed out on some truly interesting things to think about. And so have I.
Monday, 10 December 2007
Saturday, 8 December 2007
Garden photos
Although it is now impossible to walk from one end of the garden to the other without getting a face full of spider web, the useless bastards do not appear to be having any impact on the fly population.
I thought spiders were supposed to be masters at building webs. I'm sure David Attenborough told me so - it must be true. Someone needs to tell this spider to reduce the size of the gaps in his web - I watched a few flies go straight through the web.
Their diet must be a bit lacking as well, because I also saw a large fly go right through a web, knocking a hole in it in the process. I thought these webs were supposed to be strong enough to support the space shuttle. Ah well, another myth bites the dust.
Guess which plant produced these flowers.
Lettuce. Bet you didn't get that right.
Here we have a sneaky spider waiting for prey to arrive. This spider owns a big web stretched between two trees, but instead of hanging around in the centre of the web (possibly as bird food), it has entrenched itself in the leaves, and it hangs out there waiting for food to hit the web.
Another web, with a spider that looks more like a crab that anything else. Where have all the interesting looking spiders gone?
I thought spiders were supposed to be masters at building webs. I'm sure David Attenborough told me so - it must be true. Someone needs to tell this spider to reduce the size of the gaps in his web - I watched a few flies go straight through the web.
Their diet must be a bit lacking as well, because I also saw a large fly go right through a web, knocking a hole in it in the process. I thought these webs were supposed to be strong enough to support the space shuttle. Ah well, another myth bites the dust.
Guess which plant produced these flowers.
Lettuce. Bet you didn't get that right.
Here we have a sneaky spider waiting for prey to arrive. This spider owns a big web stretched between two trees, but instead of hanging around in the centre of the web (possibly as bird food), it has entrenched itself in the leaves, and it hangs out there waiting for food to hit the web.
Another web, with a spider that looks more like a crab that anything else. Where have all the interesting looking spiders gone?
Friday, 7 December 2007
Various pie shops
To those that ask, "Why pie shops?", I say, "Why not?"
Love the sign in the above photo - "cheep building material".
Love the sign in the above photo - "cheep building material".
Uphill
Yes, the ANZAC Bridge is reasonably steep. My top speed going up here is about 22km/h when I am fit, and a lot less than that when I am out of conditon.
This photo gives a nice view of how the gradient picks up just a little bit about halfway up the bridge, which makes it extra nasty.
This photo gives a nice view of how the gradient picks up just a little bit about halfway up the bridge, which makes it extra nasty.
Reminds me of Hong Kong
No, this is not Hong Kong. This is Sydney. It's just the plethora of boats all bunched together in the mist reminds me of some junk-filled area of Hong Kong that I visited in 1984. Got no idea what it was called, but all the people lived on junks crammed cheek by jowl.
Conditions are a bit more spacious at Birkenhead Point.
Conditions are a bit more spacious at Birkenhead Point.
Chickens in the clouds
Not often that you get an apartment above the clouds. Except at Mt Hotham.
Magic place.
Magic place.
Common sense in Queensland
I never thought I'd write this, but the banana benders can show more common sense than those of us south of the border.
I took this photo on the Gold Coast a few years ago. I like the advice - "Don't block the path". That's all you have to say to pedestrians - just be nice and don't block the path.
This is how similar signage is put up in NSW. Here we are crossing the ANZAC bridge at sunset. Up ahead is a similar sign, but you'll never see it - and that's not because the sun is shining in your eyes.
The sign is just starting to appear from behind another sign that has been erected in front of it. How's that for smarts?
The only time you see the sign is in the second or so that it becomes visible as you ride past the first obscuring sign. Even then, the sign is a good 10 feet off the ground, which means it is completely outside the field of view of your average pedestrian and cyclist - who tend to look at the road in front, rather than the sky.
I crossed the bridge at least 20 times before I saw this sign. Great placement guys.
I took this photo on the Gold Coast a few years ago. I like the advice - "Don't block the path". That's all you have to say to pedestrians - just be nice and don't block the path.
This is how similar signage is put up in NSW. Here we are crossing the ANZAC bridge at sunset. Up ahead is a similar sign, but you'll never see it - and that's not because the sun is shining in your eyes.
The sign is just starting to appear from behind another sign that has been erected in front of it. How's that for smarts?
The only time you see the sign is in the second or so that it becomes visible as you ride past the first obscuring sign. Even then, the sign is a good 10 feet off the ground, which means it is completely outside the field of view of your average pedestrian and cyclist - who tend to look at the road in front, rather than the sky.
I crossed the bridge at least 20 times before I saw this sign. Great placement guys.
DOCS overboard
Here in NSW, it's not children overboard, it's DOCS overboard. DOCS is the unfortunate department tasked with trying to put a lid on useless, violent, disinterested, drug-addled and delinquent parents. It's a thankless task. They should just rename it "SHOIS" - Sink Hole Of Impossible Situations.
People being nasty to their children is nothing new. Dickens had no shortage of horrible things to write about in this regard. However, our attitude to how children ought to be treated has changed markedly since modern sanitation and health care enabled most of them to get through childhood without being carried off by typhoid or diptheria or some other nasty disease that we know so little about today.
The idiots in charge seem to have taken the "no child shall live in poverty" type ideal and applied it to child rearing. Except that the new mantra is "no child shall suffer any physical pain whatsoever". That's a bit of a tall order. Smacking a naughty kid in the supermarket these days is sufficient to have the new guardians of the moral order descend on you like madmen.
Apart from that, I can see what has gone wrong with DOCS. All organisations lose efficiency once they expand beyond a certain size. Their headcount has ballooned amazingly in recent years as moral panic has set in, and once an organisation reaches a certain size, the extra people create smaller and smaller amounts of marginal output. At some point, you might even go into people creating negative marginal output (management speak for people who are a waste of space).
For instance, let's say you have 100 front line staff. You might require one HR/payroll person to support them. However, if you grow to 500, you suddenly have 5 or 6 HR/payroll people plus a manager and a secretary. And if my experience is any indicator, back office functions tend to swell much faster than front office functions when money is poured into an organisation. Areas like Finance, IT, IR, HR, legal/corporate counsel, property, motor vehicle management, security, reception etc will add headcount like crazy, and those people tend to be more expensive than the frontline people they are supporting.
Let's say you start with 100 frontline people and 1 accountant - a ratio of 1:100. Let's also imagine that each one of these people, frontline and backend, costs you $50,000. The expense ratio is 1:1.
By the time you have 500 frontline staff, the staff ratio will no longer be 1:100 - it will be 1:50 or less, because Finance will argue that all these extra people are "creating a lot more work". On top of that, the accountants will now be paid $100,000 a year because all the extra work involves a lot more responsibility. When the agency had a budget of $50 million, the accountant was paid $50,000. But now that the budget is $250 million, the beancounters will make a plausible argument that they should be paid more because the budget is bigger.
It usually works.
So the expense ratio of frontline to backend has also moved from 1:1 to 1:2. If you apply this right across the organisation, you can see that a doubling of the budget will never flow through to a doubling of front line staff. If you are lucky, frontline numbers might increase 50% - and that's only if the CEO is really tight with the money. Don't forget that because of an expanding headcount in head office, the first thing the CEO will do is move to a bigger (and flasher) office building, incorporating of course a much nicer office for the now much more important CEO.
The other thing is the decrease in quality. When you have a small organisation of say 100 people, you can be pretty sure that those people are dedicated and good at their jobs. Small organisations tend to have good morale (in my experience) because everyone knows everyone else and you can talk to the CEO over a coffee if you are having problems. It's a "no shit" organisation, because there is no pulling the wool over the eyes of management - they are too close to the action.
If a place expands quickly, quality control tends to go out the window when hiring people. Management becomes focuses on hiring, not on running the business. Problems don't get dealt with. The personal touch is lost. Many managers fail to make the transition from a small, hands-on, no-meeting environment to a beauracracy. The paper pushers take charge and push out the hands on, make it happen people.
Morale goes down the shitter. Policies and procedures developed by desk pushers in head office extinguish the last vestiges of common sense.
I'm sure that's happened to DOCS. I reckon most of the money that has been pumped into the place has been spent on computer systems, admin staff, new offices and policy writers, and very little spent on getting hard nosed people out into the slums. Even less would have been spent on supporting those people when they make tough decisions.
The other thing that shits me is the whole fostering system.
If your kids get taken away, there should be no way you should get them back until you can prove that you can support them.
That is:
I am a hard head in this regard because I am a big softie.
People being nasty to their children is nothing new. Dickens had no shortage of horrible things to write about in this regard. However, our attitude to how children ought to be treated has changed markedly since modern sanitation and health care enabled most of them to get through childhood without being carried off by typhoid or diptheria or some other nasty disease that we know so little about today.
The idiots in charge seem to have taken the "no child shall live in poverty" type ideal and applied it to child rearing. Except that the new mantra is "no child shall suffer any physical pain whatsoever". That's a bit of a tall order. Smacking a naughty kid in the supermarket these days is sufficient to have the new guardians of the moral order descend on you like madmen.
Apart from that, I can see what has gone wrong with DOCS. All organisations lose efficiency once they expand beyond a certain size. Their headcount has ballooned amazingly in recent years as moral panic has set in, and once an organisation reaches a certain size, the extra people create smaller and smaller amounts of marginal output. At some point, you might even go into people creating negative marginal output (management speak for people who are a waste of space).
For instance, let's say you have 100 front line staff. You might require one HR/payroll person to support them. However, if you grow to 500, you suddenly have 5 or 6 HR/payroll people plus a manager and a secretary. And if my experience is any indicator, back office functions tend to swell much faster than front office functions when money is poured into an organisation. Areas like Finance, IT, IR, HR, legal/corporate counsel, property, motor vehicle management, security, reception etc will add headcount like crazy, and those people tend to be more expensive than the frontline people they are supporting.
Let's say you start with 100 frontline people and 1 accountant - a ratio of 1:100. Let's also imagine that each one of these people, frontline and backend, costs you $50,000. The expense ratio is 1:1.
By the time you have 500 frontline staff, the staff ratio will no longer be 1:100 - it will be 1:50 or less, because Finance will argue that all these extra people are "creating a lot more work". On top of that, the accountants will now be paid $100,000 a year because all the extra work involves a lot more responsibility. When the agency had a budget of $50 million, the accountant was paid $50,000. But now that the budget is $250 million, the beancounters will make a plausible argument that they should be paid more because the budget is bigger.
It usually works.
So the expense ratio of frontline to backend has also moved from 1:1 to 1:2. If you apply this right across the organisation, you can see that a doubling of the budget will never flow through to a doubling of front line staff. If you are lucky, frontline numbers might increase 50% - and that's only if the CEO is really tight with the money. Don't forget that because of an expanding headcount in head office, the first thing the CEO will do is move to a bigger (and flasher) office building, incorporating of course a much nicer office for the now much more important CEO.
The other thing is the decrease in quality. When you have a small organisation of say 100 people, you can be pretty sure that those people are dedicated and good at their jobs. Small organisations tend to have good morale (in my experience) because everyone knows everyone else and you can talk to the CEO over a coffee if you are having problems. It's a "no shit" organisation, because there is no pulling the wool over the eyes of management - they are too close to the action.
If a place expands quickly, quality control tends to go out the window when hiring people. Management becomes focuses on hiring, not on running the business. Problems don't get dealt with. The personal touch is lost. Many managers fail to make the transition from a small, hands-on, no-meeting environment to a beauracracy. The paper pushers take charge and push out the hands on, make it happen people.
Morale goes down the shitter. Policies and procedures developed by desk pushers in head office extinguish the last vestiges of common sense.
I'm sure that's happened to DOCS. I reckon most of the money that has been pumped into the place has been spent on computer systems, admin staff, new offices and policy writers, and very little spent on getting hard nosed people out into the slums. Even less would have been spent on supporting those people when they make tough decisions.
The other thing that shits me is the whole fostering system.
If your kids get taken away, there should be no way you should get them back until you can prove that you can support them.
That is:
- Held down a job for 12 months
- Passed a weekly drug/booze test for 12 months
- Got some savings in the bank
- Dumped the useless, drug-addled boyfriend
I am a hard head in this regard because I am a big softie.
Juxtaposition
The SMH has developed this nasty habit of using a photo of a police car for stories on their web site when they don't have a photo from the actual event. This, combined with bad judgement with headlines, has the unfortunate effect of suggesting that the police are actually responsible for the events spelled out in the story - except that you have to click on the story to find out that the police had nothing to do with whatever heinous crime has been committed.
For those people that just skip over websites, glancing at the news, they'll probably develop the impression that police are running down people, dealing drugs and peddling children for sex.
I'd post an example here, except that they keep changing their front page, and the sample that I was going to screen grab has been updated. If they don't have a photo, I wish they'd put up nothing at all, rather than trying to beautify their page and make it look prettier or more interesting.
It's supposed to be a news site after all.
For those people that just skip over websites, glancing at the news, they'll probably develop the impression that police are running down people, dealing drugs and peddling children for sex.
I'd post an example here, except that they keep changing their front page, and the sample that I was going to screen grab has been updated. If they don't have a photo, I wish they'd put up nothing at all, rather than trying to beautify their page and make it look prettier or more interesting.
It's supposed to be a news site after all.
Cut the crap - please
I've just done a survey on "wealth management" products. Ugh. The survey asked me to rate how I felt about certain statements made about a ficticious wealth management company.
They all got right up my nose.
I am sick to death of soft focus TV commercials promoting companies such as Macquarie and AXA and the like.
Why can't they just say, "We aim to make you rich, and that is going to cost you a bundle in fees".
There. Simple. I can live with that. But I just can't stand mushy, marshmellow type advertising that is so wishy-washy, it makes my hair stand on end.
Say it like you mean it.
They all got right up my nose.
I am sick to death of soft focus TV commercials promoting companies such as Macquarie and AXA and the like.
Why can't they just say, "We aim to make you rich, and that is going to cost you a bundle in fees".
There. Simple. I can live with that. But I just can't stand mushy, marshmellow type advertising that is so wishy-washy, it makes my hair stand on end.
Say it like you mean it.
A laptop for every school?
Before we all go soft in the head over the idea of a latop in every school, let's examine the cost of having to provide a network for a school of say 900 kids.
If all 900 have a PC or laptop, and it needs to be used for every lesson, then you need at least 900 network ports - more like 1000 when you include things like printers and other peripheral devices that you might add in like scanners, security cameras and spare ports.
There are three components to your network.
The physical cabling. We'll get to that later.
A router, which you need to connect to the outside world.
A switch, or more likely, a bunch of switches.
You can setup your network in two ways. One is to stick a switch in every classroom. An example of that would be a Cisco 3750 with 48 ports. That retails for around $15,000 ex GST.
If you have 900 kids and say 25 per class, you have at least 36 classrooms. That means you need $540,000 worth of switches at a minimum - and this does not include the core switch that these 36 classroom switches need to connect to.
Now a canny education dept would be able to negotiate a good bulk discount, and get them for say 40% off retail. That still adds up to $324,000.
The problem with a network like this is that it will suffer from congestion. The better alternative is to put in some big, beefy switches at the core. This is how big companies do it. To do that, you need something like a Cisco 6509 switch.
I am not going to include all the components here, but this gives you an idea of what a big switch retails for:
These things pump out a lot of heat, so you need a special room for them. You can fit two into a rack, and each rack will cost at least $2,500. The room will need air conditioning 24x7. I'd also secure it properly, since that room now contains the most valuable things in the school.
These things are complicated. You will need to pay a smart techo to install and configure them. Ddon't even think about one of them getting out of bed for less than $20,000 on a job like this.
Then let's think about cabling. Even if you put in CAT5, you can still expect to pay $0.60 a metre, and you will need a lot of cable, and you will need qualified people to pull it and terminate it. I am not an expert on estimating what it would cost to cable a school, but let me just throw up a figure of $250,000 for an average school with a need for 1000 ports spread over multiple buildings.
So you are looking at well over $600,000 so far just to network the school. I haven't estimated what it will cost to provide the extra power points, or the support to keep it all running.
All I can say is that the IT industry will be salivating at all this.
Fat city, here we come.
If all 900 have a PC or laptop, and it needs to be used for every lesson, then you need at least 900 network ports - more like 1000 when you include things like printers and other peripheral devices that you might add in like scanners, security cameras and spare ports.
There are three components to your network.
The physical cabling. We'll get to that later.
A router, which you need to connect to the outside world.
A switch, or more likely, a bunch of switches.
You can setup your network in two ways. One is to stick a switch in every classroom. An example of that would be a Cisco 3750 with 48 ports. That retails for around $15,000 ex GST.
If you have 900 kids and say 25 per class, you have at least 36 classrooms. That means you need $540,000 worth of switches at a minimum - and this does not include the core switch that these 36 classroom switches need to connect to.
Now a canny education dept would be able to negotiate a good bulk discount, and get them for say 40% off retail. That still adds up to $324,000.
The problem with a network like this is that it will suffer from congestion. The better alternative is to put in some big, beefy switches at the core. This is how big companies do it. To do that, you need something like a Cisco 6509 switch.
I am not going to include all the components here, but this gives you an idea of what a big switch retails for:
- 6509 9 slot chassis - $15,675. This is just the "box" that everything else slots into.
- 6000W power supply - $8,250. And you need two of them per chassis. You also need special 16A power circuits for them, so you have to pay a sparky to do some work before you can think about installing them.
- Supervisor module - $42,000. This is the "brains" of the switch. Many companies like to fit two, so you have redundancy.
- 48 port module - $12,375. This is what your computers actually plug into. Assuming you jam 6 into a chassis, each switch will give you 288 ports.
These things pump out a lot of heat, so you need a special room for them. You can fit two into a rack, and each rack will cost at least $2,500. The room will need air conditioning 24x7. I'd also secure it properly, since that room now contains the most valuable things in the school.
These things are complicated. You will need to pay a smart techo to install and configure them. Ddon't even think about one of them getting out of bed for less than $20,000 on a job like this.
Then let's think about cabling. Even if you put in CAT5, you can still expect to pay $0.60 a metre, and you will need a lot of cable, and you will need qualified people to pull it and terminate it. I am not an expert on estimating what it would cost to cable a school, but let me just throw up a figure of $250,000 for an average school with a need for 1000 ports spread over multiple buildings.
So you are looking at well over $600,000 so far just to network the school. I haven't estimated what it will cost to provide the extra power points, or the support to keep it all running.
All I can say is that the IT industry will be salivating at all this.
Fat city, here we come.
Thursday, 6 December 2007
An interesting map
I am a sucker for good maps. I'm not much good at reading or following them, but I live looking at them. If I had a lot of spare cash, I'd own some really old maps and have them stuck up on the walls. Screw art - a good map, a well designed and well thought out map - is something that I can look at all day.
I found this map today - it is a bike map where all the streets in an area are colour coded by their difficulty for a cyclist. I don't think it takes into account the traditional things like gradient - it uses factors like traffic density and speed, which are much more important to your average road cyclist.
If I am looking at riding along a road, I am much more interested in whether I will get hit by a car rather than whether I will be puffed at the end of the ride. I can always get off and push on the steep bits (actually, over my dead body. I will never get off and push so long as there is breath in my body).
I met a bloke recently that had been cleaned up by a drunk driver when out cycling. He woke up in hospital and was off work for months. I will have to plug him for more information over the next few months. He says he never heard the car - just woke up in bed with tubes poking out of him. I can understand that - there are a few small chunks that my brain refused to record when I got hit, and I wasn't hit by a speeding drunk.
Anyway, I like the map. Our council has published maps of what they expect the cycle system around here to look in say, 50 years, and they aren't really that useful. I like this approach - forget about worrying about putting in dedicated cycle paths and so on. Just rate the existing road system and tell cyclists the level of experience that you need for each road. There are cyclists of course who fall into the ski equivalent of double black diamond, and they can ride on freeways at high speed without many problems. I tend to avoid roads where the speed limit is over 60, unless they have a really wide shoulder that I can ride in. I just don't see the point in tempting fate, especially with so many wingnuts driving around with a mobile phone in one hand and their brain in neutral.
I found this map today - it is a bike map where all the streets in an area are colour coded by their difficulty for a cyclist. I don't think it takes into account the traditional things like gradient - it uses factors like traffic density and speed, which are much more important to your average road cyclist.
If I am looking at riding along a road, I am much more interested in whether I will get hit by a car rather than whether I will be puffed at the end of the ride. I can always get off and push on the steep bits (actually, over my dead body. I will never get off and push so long as there is breath in my body).
I met a bloke recently that had been cleaned up by a drunk driver when out cycling. He woke up in hospital and was off work for months. I will have to plug him for more information over the next few months. He says he never heard the car - just woke up in bed with tubes poking out of him. I can understand that - there are a few small chunks that my brain refused to record when I got hit, and I wasn't hit by a speeding drunk.
Anyway, I like the map. Our council has published maps of what they expect the cycle system around here to look in say, 50 years, and they aren't really that useful. I like this approach - forget about worrying about putting in dedicated cycle paths and so on. Just rate the existing road system and tell cyclists the level of experience that you need for each road. There are cyclists of course who fall into the ski equivalent of double black diamond, and they can ride on freeways at high speed without many problems. I tend to avoid roads where the speed limit is over 60, unless they have a really wide shoulder that I can ride in. I just don't see the point in tempting fate, especially with so many wingnuts driving around with a mobile phone in one hand and their brain in neutral.
There's always one fly......
I have just been sacked out on the couch for most of the morning, gibbering with flu. The worst part of it was the one fly that just had to crawl over my face from time to time.
Although I have a fly trap out the back, and two cans of fly spray strategically located throughout the house, we are still suffering under a small plague of flies. I walk through the house several times a day, zapping this way and that. Piles of dead flies are stacking up on every window sill, yet still they keep coming.
I'd love to know where the little buggers are breeding. I might have to undertake a covert raid on my neighbours bins.
What I have noticed is how manouverable the modern fly is. It used to be that you pointed the can at a fly, depressed the lever and the fly just meandered into a cloud of death. These days, they seem to be remarkably good at flying around the cloud before it reaches them. I am now producing clouds of fly spray that would do a thunderstorm proud.
There was a TV ad around years ago that showed a fly in slow motion flying into a cloud of sly spray and one big, fat drop smacks into the fly's head from front on. It's a great shot.
That's what I visualise happening when I spray the little buggers. Pity it never happens anymore.
Although I have a fly trap out the back, and two cans of fly spray strategically located throughout the house, we are still suffering under a small plague of flies. I walk through the house several times a day, zapping this way and that. Piles of dead flies are stacking up on every window sill, yet still they keep coming.
I'd love to know where the little buggers are breeding. I might have to undertake a covert raid on my neighbours bins.
What I have noticed is how manouverable the modern fly is. It used to be that you pointed the can at a fly, depressed the lever and the fly just meandered into a cloud of death. These days, they seem to be remarkably good at flying around the cloud before it reaches them. I am now producing clouds of fly spray that would do a thunderstorm proud.
There was a TV ad around years ago that showed a fly in slow motion flying into a cloud of sly spray and one big, fat drop smacks into the fly's head from front on. It's a great shot.
That's what I visualise happening when I spray the little buggers. Pity it never happens anymore.
Conservatives have fewer mental problems
I have read a few articles on this thesis lately. Research is showing that the further to the left you are, the madder you are likely to be. Well, I made that last bit up, but it sounds about right to me. We don't call them the "loonie left" for nothing.
The election clarified a lot of things for me. After the election, I bumped into a number of people who asked me how I voted, then before I could answer, spouted "I voted Green" or "I voted Labor".
Well, good for you. We all get a vote, and you can use yours anyway you like.
But don't expect me to tell you how I voted. It's none of your business. I don't care how you voted frankly, and I make an effort to not judge people according to their political affiliations. I try to judge them by their qualities and their actions.
The whole in your face "I voted Green" really gets up my nose. Next time I bump into one, I will thank them for that information and then politely ask them to go and take down their election posters, which are still festooning power poles all over Sydney. I spotted one outside World Square on George St yesterday. I get the feeling that the Greens are in permanent campaign mode, and will never take their signs down. I need a flame thrower with a good reach. I'm sure the non-biodegradable plastic that they are made out of will burn beautifully.
I see the whole "I have to tell you how I voted" thing as a sign of a mental problem. These are people that are seeking the acclamation of others in order to feel good. I don't need someone to pat me on the back in order for me to feel good. I generate positive feelings about myself and my existance internally. I think that is the sign of a good conservative - they are self motivated and independently minded enough to go their own way. Group-think is not a part of our mental makeup. Group hugs are not required to bolster our week and measly self esteem.
Greens, or lefties, are therefor shallow, spineless people in search of some external support for their existence. If you cram enough jellyfish together in a tight bunch, you can make a pile of them - that is how I see lefties. It will keep falling over unless you keep on patting it back into shape and adding more jellyfish to the top of the pile. The only way to keep the pile together is to give it a big hug.
I have enough spine to stand alone.
The election clarified a lot of things for me. After the election, I bumped into a number of people who asked me how I voted, then before I could answer, spouted "I voted Green" or "I voted Labor".
Well, good for you. We all get a vote, and you can use yours anyway you like.
But don't expect me to tell you how I voted. It's none of your business. I don't care how you voted frankly, and I make an effort to not judge people according to their political affiliations. I try to judge them by their qualities and their actions.
The whole in your face "I voted Green" really gets up my nose. Next time I bump into one, I will thank them for that information and then politely ask them to go and take down their election posters, which are still festooning power poles all over Sydney. I spotted one outside World Square on George St yesterday. I get the feeling that the Greens are in permanent campaign mode, and will never take their signs down. I need a flame thrower with a good reach. I'm sure the non-biodegradable plastic that they are made out of will burn beautifully.
I see the whole "I have to tell you how I voted" thing as a sign of a mental problem. These are people that are seeking the acclamation of others in order to feel good. I don't need someone to pat me on the back in order for me to feel good. I generate positive feelings about myself and my existance internally. I think that is the sign of a good conservative - they are self motivated and independently minded enough to go their own way. Group-think is not a part of our mental makeup. Group hugs are not required to bolster our week and measly self esteem.
Greens, or lefties, are therefor shallow, spineless people in search of some external support for their existence. If you cram enough jellyfish together in a tight bunch, you can make a pile of them - that is how I see lefties. It will keep falling over unless you keep on patting it back into shape and adding more jellyfish to the top of the pile. The only way to keep the pile together is to give it a big hug.
I have enough spine to stand alone.
Follow the money
A few good crime thrillers/movies/shows have used the line "follow the money" when trying to crack a criminal conspiracy.
We've also seen the term "conspiracy" applied to the tobaco industry, the oil industry, the car industry (resisting safety and fuel economy improvements), the weapons industry and any other industry that the greenocracy deems to be "bad".
I think it's time we applied these two terms to Global Warming. No, I am not a conspiracy nutter, but I would enjoy hearing this term applied to the greenocracy for once, since it is always used with opprobrium. Let me say it now - Global Warming was invented by the Gnomes of Zurich. Yes, you read that here first. If you read the Protocols of Zion, you'll see that global warming is a plot by the Jews to corner various real estate markets.
Hey, I could get on a roll here. Seen any black helicopters flying around the global warming conference in Bali? You won't hear any, as they are all using whisper mode. What I want to know is where the real deals are done in Bali - you know, the guys in hooded robes with the funny handshakes and the goat sacrifices and that sort of thing. The actual powerbrokers who decide the fate of the planet whilst various world "leaders" pose for photos at the conference, and NGOs run around handing out pamplets and seeing who has the most bio-degradable stall.
I bet we'll find out in a few years time that Halliburton bought Bangladesh in a back room deal at the conference.
Following the money is easy. Just look at how the research grant system has been twisted to include a global warming slant. I should apply for a grant to research how global warming has impacted on blogging. Are more bloggers currently blogging in their underpants as a result of global warming?
/rant off.
We've also seen the term "conspiracy" applied to the tobaco industry, the oil industry, the car industry (resisting safety and fuel economy improvements), the weapons industry and any other industry that the greenocracy deems to be "bad".
I think it's time we applied these two terms to Global Warming. No, I am not a conspiracy nutter, but I would enjoy hearing this term applied to the greenocracy for once, since it is always used with opprobrium. Let me say it now - Global Warming was invented by the Gnomes of Zurich. Yes, you read that here first. If you read the Protocols of Zion, you'll see that global warming is a plot by the Jews to corner various real estate markets.
Hey, I could get on a roll here. Seen any black helicopters flying around the global warming conference in Bali? You won't hear any, as they are all using whisper mode. What I want to know is where the real deals are done in Bali - you know, the guys in hooded robes with the funny handshakes and the goat sacrifices and that sort of thing. The actual powerbrokers who decide the fate of the planet whilst various world "leaders" pose for photos at the conference, and NGOs run around handing out pamplets and seeing who has the most bio-degradable stall.
I bet we'll find out in a few years time that Halliburton bought Bangladesh in a back room deal at the conference.
Following the money is easy. Just look at how the research grant system has been twisted to include a global warming slant. I should apply for a grant to research how global warming has impacted on blogging. Are more bloggers currently blogging in their underpants as a result of global warming?
/rant off.
Friendly and whacked out bus loonies
I had to take the bus to and from work yesterday. Major disappointment. One day of riding, then back on the bus.
When I stepped onto the bus in the morning, the first thing that caught my eye was two Keith Richards impersonators sitting near the front. They were two blokes, both rake thin, who looked about 20 years older than their actual age. One had a bandana on (always a bad look on anyone over 30) and the other a leather vest. Both had some sort of string bag slung over their shoulder.
The key thing is that they were whacked out of their minds on something. Presumably heroin. They were way too skinny to be dopeheads. Each had a stub of a rollie with them - one had it perched ala Richards style on his bottom lip, whilst the other had his between his fingers and constantly sucked on it.
Even though it was out.
I was waiting for one or both of them to light up so I could yell out, "Hey, smackhead hippies - no smoking on the bus".
If I was the education dept, I'd employ these two under some sort of welfare-to-work program and have them ride a different school bus each and every day. I don't think kids believe the "Just say no to drugs" message, but I think they'll get the "I don't want to end up being a totally uncool smacked out hippie at 50, dressing like a teenager and looking like a complete dick".
They eventually alighted at Norton St, sat down in the bus shelter and immediately lit up and started rubbing their anorexic arms. They were like a pair of old lovers - they sat there with their grizzled heads almost touching, blabbing quietly to each other about anything that happened to pass through their wasted heads. Except of course that each was totally in love with smack.
On the way home, a little old lady approached me at the bus stop and asked me where Hoyts Broadway was. We were standing opposite where the Hoyts cinema used to stand on George St, and my brain refused to acknowledge that the cinema moved a few kilometres down the road some years ago. I used to go to Hoyts quite a lot - a friend worked there as an usher, and I got in for free once a week or so. I looked across the road and my brain saw Hoyts, so I pointed over the road and said "there". Then I realised that she had said "Broadway", and I was completely wrong. I then explained how to get to Broadway by bus - essentially catch any bus that pulled up at the stop we were standing at, then get off when you see the big 1930's style shopping centre, complete with art-deco glass balls on the roof.
That all seemed a bit hard, but thankfully my bus pulled up a few seconds later, so we got on together and I showed her where to jump off. She was going to see "Into the wild", which I had seen previewed on the Movie Show this week. It held no attraction for me, but she was clearly right into it. We chatted about the reviews that David and Margaret gave it, and I was so thankful that she was not a complete nutter. Maybe a bit lonely and quite outgoing, but not mad. Phew. A close shave.
Shortly after, a woman sat down opposite me and pulled out a book on Castro written by George Galloway.
I was very pleased to note that she had bought it at one of those bargain basement shops. It was marked down from $30 to $2.99.
Even then, I reckon she paid $3 too much for it. I wouldn't even give that prick George the annoying hairs from my nostrils.
When I stepped onto the bus in the morning, the first thing that caught my eye was two Keith Richards impersonators sitting near the front. They were two blokes, both rake thin, who looked about 20 years older than their actual age. One had a bandana on (always a bad look on anyone over 30) and the other a leather vest. Both had some sort of string bag slung over their shoulder.
The key thing is that they were whacked out of their minds on something. Presumably heroin. They were way too skinny to be dopeheads. Each had a stub of a rollie with them - one had it perched ala Richards style on his bottom lip, whilst the other had his between his fingers and constantly sucked on it.
Even though it was out.
I was waiting for one or both of them to light up so I could yell out, "Hey, smackhead hippies - no smoking on the bus".
If I was the education dept, I'd employ these two under some sort of welfare-to-work program and have them ride a different school bus each and every day. I don't think kids believe the "Just say no to drugs" message, but I think they'll get the "I don't want to end up being a totally uncool smacked out hippie at 50, dressing like a teenager and looking like a complete dick".
They eventually alighted at Norton St, sat down in the bus shelter and immediately lit up and started rubbing their anorexic arms. They were like a pair of old lovers - they sat there with their grizzled heads almost touching, blabbing quietly to each other about anything that happened to pass through their wasted heads. Except of course that each was totally in love with smack.
On the way home, a little old lady approached me at the bus stop and asked me where Hoyts Broadway was. We were standing opposite where the Hoyts cinema used to stand on George St, and my brain refused to acknowledge that the cinema moved a few kilometres down the road some years ago. I used to go to Hoyts quite a lot - a friend worked there as an usher, and I got in for free once a week or so. I looked across the road and my brain saw Hoyts, so I pointed over the road and said "there". Then I realised that she had said "Broadway", and I was completely wrong. I then explained how to get to Broadway by bus - essentially catch any bus that pulled up at the stop we were standing at, then get off when you see the big 1930's style shopping centre, complete with art-deco glass balls on the roof.
That all seemed a bit hard, but thankfully my bus pulled up a few seconds later, so we got on together and I showed her where to jump off. She was going to see "Into the wild", which I had seen previewed on the Movie Show this week. It held no attraction for me, but she was clearly right into it. We chatted about the reviews that David and Margaret gave it, and I was so thankful that she was not a complete nutter. Maybe a bit lonely and quite outgoing, but not mad. Phew. A close shave.
Shortly after, a woman sat down opposite me and pulled out a book on Castro written by George Galloway.
I was very pleased to note that she had bought it at one of those bargain basement shops. It was marked down from $30 to $2.99.
Even then, I reckon she paid $3 too much for it. I wouldn't even give that prick George the annoying hairs from my nostrils.
Two fishy restaurant reviews
I recently ate at two flash seafood restaurants in a short time span.
The first was Doyles down at the international terminal. I am normally somewhat sceptical of Doyles, having seen the enormous queues for a table down at Watsons Bay, and the rush to turn patrons over and boot them out the door. But I was willing to give this place a go - after all, it has a smashing view over towards the Opera House. The trick is to get a table upstairs where the view is even better.
I started with scallops, and had fish and chips for my main. I figure that if a restaurant can't cook fish and chips properly, then it doesn't have much hope of cooking anything very well.
My scallops were just passable. They were absolutely swimming in some kind of sauce that I did not particularly enjoy. I am fond of grilling them quickly with just a bit of butter and lemon and perhaps some dill and that's it. These tasted like they had been boiled for quite some time in the sauce. Not having them again.
Then there was the fish and chips. Doyles had the same problem as the Establishment - they sliced the fillets into thin strips that dried out internally when fried. All the moisture was long gone by the time I got to them. I watched Food Safari last night on SBS and they showed what a lump of dried bonito looks like, and it reminded me somewhat of my fish. It was edible, but could have been so much better.
I was offered some tartare sauce after I started eating, and I get the feeling the sauce came out of a jar rather than being prepared by the chef. When you are paying over $30 for fish and chips, you expect chef to make the sauce.
The chips were average and completely devoid of salt. I tried sprinkling salt over them and it all bounced off. They must be using magic salt repelling potatoes.
With dessert and wine, that meal cost over $70 a head. I would not hurry back, unless I had some out of town tourists who really wanted to see the view. It's like dining at Centrepoint - you go for the view rather than the food.
The second place was Flying Fish, which is situated at the end of a Wharf just around the corner from the casino. It's a smashing location, and the interior looks great (if you like lots of old wood and that revamped warehouse look).
The only way I can describe the food and service is "over the top pretentious". Everything cost a bomb, and the portions should have been served with a magnifying glass. Most mains were around the $41 or more mark.
One good thing was that they had oysters as a starter, and six different varieties. I had half a dozen, including one of each variety. At $4 an oyster, you expect them to be quite magnificent. They were, but I would have liked a selection of dipping sauces. I ate somewhere, way back, where they gave you a row of little thimbles that each contained a different dipping sauce. My oysters sorely needed that. They certainly ranged widely in taste and texture. One of them was so salty, it was like licking the salt dish. I wouldn't have enjoyed eating 6 of them.
For my main, I had a selection of vegetarian curries. Normally, that would be the last thing I'd have, but my reasoning was that if you are paying over $40 for a main, you should expect to get some pretty flash curries. Every vegetable curry that I've ever had has consisted of mushy or pureed vegetables - you get either yellow mush, light brown mush or dark brown mush - and ocasionally green mush.
They didn't disappoint on that front, presenting me with three individual bowls of crispy vegetable curries. One was curried beetroot, one was curried zucchini (I think) and the last was curried beans. Two of them were excellent, the third a bit flat.
What shat me though was the presentation. They came with "condiments", which consisted of the smallest possible spoonfulls of condiments that it's possible to put in a bowl. And I am talking about really small spoons and really small bowls. There was a yoghurt sauce, which was about one level teaspoon. There was some finely chopped mango with an artfully placed sliver of curled chilli on top. You know when you chop a mango in a hedgehog fashion? Well, think of one of the cubes of mango that results. Now cut that cube in half and throw away half of it. Now finely dice what remains - that's what I got.
The third condiment was finely grated coconut. Consider the amount of coconut required to cover your big toenail in a layer one shaving thick. That's about it.
The meal was fiddly to eat, sort of interesting, reasonably tasty - but not something that I would ever order again, or recommend to anyone else. The main problem is that I could not figure out how to eat it! The curry was in three bowls, the rice was on a platter, and I was not sure if I was supposed to put rice in the curry or curry in the rice or just eat them separately.
Parking was also a pain in the bum. For my money, it was trying way too hard. Waa-aay too hard.
The first was Doyles down at the international terminal. I am normally somewhat sceptical of Doyles, having seen the enormous queues for a table down at Watsons Bay, and the rush to turn patrons over and boot them out the door. But I was willing to give this place a go - after all, it has a smashing view over towards the Opera House. The trick is to get a table upstairs where the view is even better.
I started with scallops, and had fish and chips for my main. I figure that if a restaurant can't cook fish and chips properly, then it doesn't have much hope of cooking anything very well.
My scallops were just passable. They were absolutely swimming in some kind of sauce that I did not particularly enjoy. I am fond of grilling them quickly with just a bit of butter and lemon and perhaps some dill and that's it. These tasted like they had been boiled for quite some time in the sauce. Not having them again.
Then there was the fish and chips. Doyles had the same problem as the Establishment - they sliced the fillets into thin strips that dried out internally when fried. All the moisture was long gone by the time I got to them. I watched Food Safari last night on SBS and they showed what a lump of dried bonito looks like, and it reminded me somewhat of my fish. It was edible, but could have been so much better.
I was offered some tartare sauce after I started eating, and I get the feeling the sauce came out of a jar rather than being prepared by the chef. When you are paying over $30 for fish and chips, you expect chef to make the sauce.
The chips were average and completely devoid of salt. I tried sprinkling salt over them and it all bounced off. They must be using magic salt repelling potatoes.
With dessert and wine, that meal cost over $70 a head. I would not hurry back, unless I had some out of town tourists who really wanted to see the view. It's like dining at Centrepoint - you go for the view rather than the food.
The second place was Flying Fish, which is situated at the end of a Wharf just around the corner from the casino. It's a smashing location, and the interior looks great (if you like lots of old wood and that revamped warehouse look).
The only way I can describe the food and service is "over the top pretentious". Everything cost a bomb, and the portions should have been served with a magnifying glass. Most mains were around the $41 or more mark.
One good thing was that they had oysters as a starter, and six different varieties. I had half a dozen, including one of each variety. At $4 an oyster, you expect them to be quite magnificent. They were, but I would have liked a selection of dipping sauces. I ate somewhere, way back, where they gave you a row of little thimbles that each contained a different dipping sauce. My oysters sorely needed that. They certainly ranged widely in taste and texture. One of them was so salty, it was like licking the salt dish. I wouldn't have enjoyed eating 6 of them.
For my main, I had a selection of vegetarian curries. Normally, that would be the last thing I'd have, but my reasoning was that if you are paying over $40 for a main, you should expect to get some pretty flash curries. Every vegetable curry that I've ever had has consisted of mushy or pureed vegetables - you get either yellow mush, light brown mush or dark brown mush - and ocasionally green mush.
They didn't disappoint on that front, presenting me with three individual bowls of crispy vegetable curries. One was curried beetroot, one was curried zucchini (I think) and the last was curried beans. Two of them were excellent, the third a bit flat.
What shat me though was the presentation. They came with "condiments", which consisted of the smallest possible spoonfulls of condiments that it's possible to put in a bowl. And I am talking about really small spoons and really small bowls. There was a yoghurt sauce, which was about one level teaspoon. There was some finely chopped mango with an artfully placed sliver of curled chilli on top. You know when you chop a mango in a hedgehog fashion? Well, think of one of the cubes of mango that results. Now cut that cube in half and throw away half of it. Now finely dice what remains - that's what I got.
The third condiment was finely grated coconut. Consider the amount of coconut required to cover your big toenail in a layer one shaving thick. That's about it.
The meal was fiddly to eat, sort of interesting, reasonably tasty - but not something that I would ever order again, or recommend to anyone else. The main problem is that I could not figure out how to eat it! The curry was in three bowls, the rice was on a platter, and I was not sure if I was supposed to put rice in the curry or curry in the rice or just eat them separately.
Parking was also a pain in the bum. For my money, it was trying way too hard. Waa-aay too hard.
Flu
I am going to be off the bike for a few days - came down with a nasty dose of the flu yesterday. Have been coughing up nasty green lumps of almost solid snot all morning - reminds me of the texture of wood putty or blu-tak.
So much for getting some more exercise. I am so stuffed, I can barely get off the couch.
So much for getting some more exercise. I am so stuffed, I can barely get off the couch.
Tuesday, 4 December 2007
The existance of Australia shows how adaptable we are
Should we be worried about climate change reshaping our environment?
I think not. So the environment might be a bit different in 50 years time. Oooooh, spooky. So what?
Farmers have always changed crops in response to market conditions. 30 years ago, most Australian farmers would have grown mainly wheat. Then along came other alternatives like canola (rape), and some diversified into growing that. Some moved into rice or cotton. Others moved from sheep to grapes. They adapted amazingly quickly. For some crops, it might just involve learning how to grow it (reading a pamphlet and hiring an advisor) and buying a new bit of machinery to attach to the existing tractor. If the climate changes, farmers will change what they grow. Or they'll move to a new area or get out of farming altogether. I know a few farmers that have done that. It happens all the time as a matter of course anyway.
The last major shift in cropping patterns was when horses gave way to tractors. I don't know the exact figures, but I think farmers used to grow about 30% oats - purely as horse feed. When they got a tractor, they stopped growing oats. That was a massive shift from one cereal crop to other crops. Happened in the blink of an eye really.
Consider a case of 18th century climate change - the First Fleet arriving in Sydney in 1788. It was a massive "climate change" for those on board, and they had to adapt to a totally alien environment - and quickly. If they didn't, they'd starve.
And that was back when "high tech" consisted of a good shovel and a horse.
The very fact that people with no knowledge of the new land, and extremely primitive tools by our standards, managed to make a go of it shows to me that humans are amazingly adaptable and can overcome any challenges thrown up by climate change.
I think not. So the environment might be a bit different in 50 years time. Oooooh, spooky. So what?
Farmers have always changed crops in response to market conditions. 30 years ago, most Australian farmers would have grown mainly wheat. Then along came other alternatives like canola (rape), and some diversified into growing that. Some moved into rice or cotton. Others moved from sheep to grapes. They adapted amazingly quickly. For some crops, it might just involve learning how to grow it (reading a pamphlet and hiring an advisor) and buying a new bit of machinery to attach to the existing tractor. If the climate changes, farmers will change what they grow. Or they'll move to a new area or get out of farming altogether. I know a few farmers that have done that. It happens all the time as a matter of course anyway.
The last major shift in cropping patterns was when horses gave way to tractors. I don't know the exact figures, but I think farmers used to grow about 30% oats - purely as horse feed. When they got a tractor, they stopped growing oats. That was a massive shift from one cereal crop to other crops. Happened in the blink of an eye really.
Consider a case of 18th century climate change - the First Fleet arriving in Sydney in 1788. It was a massive "climate change" for those on board, and they had to adapt to a totally alien environment - and quickly. If they didn't, they'd starve.
And that was back when "high tech" consisted of a good shovel and a horse.
The very fact that people with no knowledge of the new land, and extremely primitive tools by our standards, managed to make a go of it shows to me that humans are amazingly adaptable and can overcome any challenges thrown up by climate change.
Kevin, you are an economically illiterate idiot
Banks are threatening to raise mortgage rates regardless of what the Reserve announces tomorrow. Both Mr Swan and the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, appealed to banks to consider the plight of working families.
"I would draw their attention to the fact that working families are already suffering a series of interest rate rises and are already under financial pressure," Mr Rudd said. Mr Swan said: "I would urge all of the banks to take great care and great consideration … a lot of people out there are in financial pressure."
A report card on economic growth also due tomorrow is likely to add to fears of interest rate rises. It is expected to show the economy grew a robust 4.8 per cent over the year.As Homer would say - "Doh!"
You want to dampen inflation? You have to reduce demand. "Demand" is nothing more than spending by people and companies. In order to stop people spending so much, you have to take away some of their money.
You can do that via interest rates or tax increases.
Either way, "working families" are going to have less money in their pockets. It's the only way to make it work.
By the way, we are a "working family" and we are not suffering from high interest rates or financial stress.
Maybe he should redefine that term as "over-extended bogans with a new Crossman Ute and a new boat and a new extension on the McMansion". Working families that exercise a bit of restraint should have a reasonable cushion of financial fat that they've put aside to tide them over the inevitable economic hiccups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)