|
Mithranderp posted:It really shits me because they HAVE to know that there's way more potential in renewables, despite the fact that coal has been lucrative in the past. It's one of the fastest growing industries in the world. With all our space and abundant natural resources (and our awesome scientists) we could/should be investing heavily in research for renewables, as well as putting up lots of those wind farms that Hockey finds so "offensive" (because they are a reminder that his attitude to renewables is wrong). And when Solar technology gets a bit more efficient, how about we install a gently caress off big solar array somewhere in the middle of nowhere? Maybe the renewable sector should buy them more bottles of wine and expensive overseas junkets.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
In other news, Doc Neeson carked it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Lid posted:List of people who think uni fees will decrease: Pyne, Hockey First these guys are talking about averages not medians. Well I'll let that slide and talk about averages too. The funding cuts* per university divided by the number of students comes out to be around $900 to $1200 per student on average for the three ones I saw publish the level of cuts they were going to get. These numbers are far from double the cost of fees. Also the recommendation on university funding in the Shepherd Commission of Audit was this: quote:The commission said the commonwealth contribution should reduce from 59% of costs to 45%, with the average cost paid by students increasing from 41% to 55%. This would increase the amount graduates would ultimately have to pay back through the Higher Education Loan Program (Help), formerly known as Hecs. Hardly doubling. *cuts also inclusive of reductions in hypothetical increases. Also a very large chunk of the cuts were proposed by the ALP in order to fund Gonski: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...x-1226619719867 I await to see the analysis from the universities justifying their need to double fees. Anyone seen/got that???
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Hypation posted:The funding cuts* per university divided by the number of students comes out to be around $900 to $1200 per student on average for the three ones I saw publish the level of cuts they were going to get. These numbers are far from double the cost of fees. What do you mean "per student"? Per student what? Semester? Year? Entire course? Class?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
https://www.universitiesaustralia.e...ign-on-students Actual link. Haven't had time to read through it in detail yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
adamantium|wang posted:Pope in 2009: Goddamn my memory must be going. I've been thinking for years now that the image was from the first Gulf War. And no poo poo the history of Aboriginal Australia is horrifying but no one cares because it's so awful and its easier to bury heads and wave them around political capital is needed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:56
|
|
Hypation posted:First these guys are talking about averages not medians. Well I'll let that slide and talk about averages too. Business and finance lecturer thinks mean and average are the same thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Haters Objector posted:Business and finance lecturer thinks mean and average are the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
The idea of airing an apology for offending Chris Kenny immediately before showing Chris Lilley's latest racist pile of poo poo makes me feel physically ill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Hypation posted:I await to see the analysis from the universities justifying their need to double fees. Anyone seen/got that??? The market will bear it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Like seriously, if you think that a for profit business is not going to raise prices for a service that is price inelastic due both to it being a necessary gateway for their chosen career and the price being offset to a later date then I guess business lecturers don't need to know high school economics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Captain Pissweak posted:What do you mean "per student"? Per student what? Semester? Year? Entire course? Class? Per student per year. It was a division of the total funding cut per univisity divided by their number of students. I posted it earlier. Something like $50m to $60m in cuts to universities against 42,000 to 50,000 or whatever students. Gough Suppressant posted:Like seriously, if you think that a for profit business is not going to raise prices for a service that is price inelastic due both to it being a necessary gateway for their chosen career and the price being offset to a later date then I guess business lecturers don't need to know high school economics. Deregulating fees does not suddenly turn not for profit universities into for-profit universities. Some of them are NFP under their own Acts of Parliament.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Haters Objector posted:Business and finance lecturer thinks mean and average are the same thing. Unless you specifically state that you're talking about the median or the mode or something else, it's pretty safe to assume that people mean mean when they say average.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
nogthree posted:Labor just announced they're filing against Shaw for contempt of Parliament. [img - Ron Paul It's Happening.GIF] Since Ken Smith is going to support this, this might actually help Naptime more than Andrews if it gets passed
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Per student per year. It was a division of the total funding cut per univisity divided by their number of students. I posted it earlier. Something like $50m to $60m in cuts to universities against 42,000 to 50,000 or whatever students. Please describe the market mechanisms which you believe will lead to universities implementing only a modest increase in fees, preferably referencing why these did not lead to any of those universities not implementing the maximum allowable fee increases under the Howard reforms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Could one of the Vic goons write / link a short summary of what is going on there?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Could one of the Vic goons write / link a short summary of what is going on there? http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2014/06/04/victorian-crisis-primer/
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
a ...good first dog???
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Unless you specifically state that you're talking about the median or the mode or something else, it's pretty safe to assume that people mean mean when they say average. It's just clumsy language to compare the median to "the average" when the median is an average. Anyone who knows what a median is also knows what a mean is, so you might as well use the correct term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:The idea of airing an apology for offending Chris Kenny immediately before showing Chris Lilley's latest racist pile of poo poo makes me feel physically ill. Well at least no one will see it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Those On My Beet posted:Well at least no one will see it. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:34
|
|
open24hours posted:Unless you specifically state that you're talking about the median or the mode or something else, it's pretty safe to assume that people mean mean when they say average. It's pretty safe to assume that people are using a term incorrectly unless they state that they are using it correctly? I can understand that this might fly at Hypation's clown college, but I would expect a proper Business and Finance Lecturer to use the term correctly.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Is it unusual for chiefs of staff etc to be in parliament like Peta Credlin often is, or is it just that a woman on the coalition side stands out a hell of a lot more than some white guy in a suit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:Please describe the market mechanisms which you believe will lead to universities implementing only a modest increase in fees, preferably referencing why these did not lead to any of those universities not implementing the maximum allowable fee increases under the Howard reforms. Or why the same market mechanisms that'll magically protect domestic students don't stop these not for profit universities from absolutely reaming international students for all they are worth. Howard reforms in Australia: "not for profit" universities implement maximum allowable fee increases. Tertiary reforms in the UK: "not for profit" universities implement maximum allowable fee increases. I attend a "not for profit" university in the US. Tuition for undergrads? A cool $60k a year. The university also has a warchest of 10s of billions of dollars. But I attend an elite university, so surely this is an anomaly. Nope! There are scores of "average" universities close by that have tuition upwards of $50k a year. In the vast majority of instances, actions such as what the Coalition is attempting have resulted in drastic fee increases. The end goal is quite transparently to ape the US system. A system in which students take out absolutely enormous loans to cover absurdly large tuition fees that are only increasing, even for the crappiest of universities, have to begin to repay as soon as they graduate regardless of their earnings/occupation status, and (drumroll...) people from lower SECs are severely disadvantaged in gaining admission and/or being able to afford universities that will allow them to reach their potential. You claim to be a finance lecturer. Demand for university education far outstrips supply. Many people see university as a necessity in meeting their life goals. They will pay whatever they have to even if they go into massive amounts of debt. We know this because people do this exact thing in the US and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that Australians will act any differently. So the market will allow universities to increase their fees astronomically and there will still be enough people sticking up their hands to maintain current enrollment levels. So the market can bear massive fee increases. Are you, as a business and finance lecturer, going to argue that deregulating the system wouldn't then result in universities adjusting there fees to what the market will sustain? What is the mechanism opposing the all powerful market that will prevent the universities from increasing their fees to these levels? The goodness of vice-chancellor hearts? The administrators who already pay themselves million dollar salaries far in excess of lecturers, professors and researchers such as yourself? You know all this of course; that you're arguing disingenuously. But you don't give a poo poo since you're ok with the end goal. Arcanen fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:Is it unusual for chiefs of staff etc to be in parliament like Peta Credlin often is, or is it just that a woman on the coalition side stands out a hell of a lot more than some white guy in a suit.  The bits labelled 'officals' to either side of the speaker's chair are where err, officals get to hang out. There is even a wall to prevent their evil inefficient public servant cooties from oozing all over the floor of the house. I have heard it referred to as the penalty box because you usually only got to sit there if something had gone very very badly wrong. Generally occupied by fat men in blue pin striped suits (beard optional).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Execute posted:Acutally its worse, Im in Tassie. One of us one of us
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/04/tony-abbotts-delayed-departure-for-indonesia-blamed-on-laborquote:The defence minister, David Johnston, has blamed the previous Labor government after Tony Abbott’s departure for Indonesia was delayed by technical problems with his RAAF jet on Wednesday. Seriously? Labor's fault? These guys really don't understand that they are not in opposition any more I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Blaming other people constantly in any other job would get you fired very quickly. It shows a lack of initiative and problem solving skills. Luckily politics isn't a real job and no one ever gets fired. Even after running the country into the ground you get to retire and live off the peasants for the rest of your soul-less life flagellating yourself to Jesus or whatever it is Christians do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Mithranderp posted:Nope let's just dig holes. We had some of the leaders in solar technology ten years ago who now all work for Chinese companies because we cut their funding. Look at the Chinese producers and remember that could have been us if we were in any way forward thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
This just wrapped up in Tasmania. I think its a good likeness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Pilger had balls of steel confronting Aussies on Australia day about Aborigines being the first Australians and reminding fuckwits of that. Very surprised he didn't get a glassing. Turning Australia day into a loving jingoistic day of celebration for a country which has no loving culture of its own to celebrate (you can't call genocide, domestic violence and alcoholism a culture) is just the absolute worst. People who celebrate Australia day getting blind drunk and wearing flag capes is akin to getting blind drunk and wearing Nazi flags around Auschwitz. i got banned fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Unless you specifically state that you're talking about the median or the mode or something else, it's pretty safe to assume that people mean mean when they say average. Yes. But then they can readily end up misleading people. If there is any skew in the data then the average will deviate from the median. Typically price distributions are right skewed meaning that averages are substantially higher than the distributions' median. The average person pays the median price not the average price. This then becomes a problem because avertisers / politicians etc can comment on a price somewhere between median and average legitimately claim it is "cheaper than average" and then spuriously make a comparison between the average person and the average price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:Nobody's sugarcoating anything, I'm very aware of the impacts of rare earth mining especially in countries like China that are lacking in even the most vestigial of mining regulations. My position is simply that the damage caused by the solar energy production line is a more necessary evil than the damage caused by mining of thorium and uranium. (no I am not saying that the situation in China is remotely acceptable) How is this sentiment any different from "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" views? If you have to quibble over what is the lesser of two evils, your not addressing the core issue. Its all unsafe, destructive industry that externalises costs by ignoring long term damage done to the environment. This is not a good argument for dismissing further development of nuclear power. If you're digging poo poo out of the ground, you may as well attempt to utilise it as efficiently/effectively as possible. quote:This is classic goalpost shifting, I was under the impression that we were discussing the research and development of thorium as pertains to commercialising it as a power source. Fundamental isotope research is a completely different story since that can have a whole range of benefits in other fields. How do you think this research happens? Applied physics generally have commercial applications as a goal or motivation. There's no reason not to explore Thorium power generation, but its not going to solve our immediate concerns. Mithranderp posted:It really shits me because they HAVE to know that there's way more potential in renewables, despite the fact that coal has been lucrative in the past. It's one of the fastest growing industries in the world. With all our space and abundant natural resources (and our awesome scientists) we could/should be investing heavily in research for renewables... Is it medical research?!? Yeah, the sentiment blows my mind considering that most operating coal plants are old, are need to be replaced soon. but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_power_stations_in_Australia Lets gently caress the environment some more, what could go wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:Is it unusual for chiefs of staff etc to be in parliament like Peta Credlin often is, or is it just that a woman on the coalition side stands out a hell of a lot more than some white guy in a suit. Who knows but:  I saw this front page and the headline is very confusing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Yes. But then they can readily end up misleading people. Aren't you talking about the mode? You can't even keep your bullshit statistics straight. The median is the mode (and mean) in normally distributed data. Surprise Uni fees are not normally distributed. gently caress your maths is terrible, and you're a finance/business lecturer? Its possible to have a median that no one pays (even total with different middle most values). With the way fees are charged in discrete sums, the distribution would be 'glassy' with a gap between subsidised and full-fee students. The median is one of the worst measures of central tendency for this type of distribution. Most people will pay the mode, and the mode will increase if caps are increased or removed. Its hard to argue the opposite with many universities anticipating higher fees. Tokamak fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:gently caress your maths is terrible, and you're a finance/business lecturer? Finance/business is quite diverse and there are a number of subjects that would not require the lecturer to have any inkling of maths or stats. On the other hand, Hypation is pretty terrible so no surprise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
NATIONAL Reconciliation Week finishes today. The Aboriginal industry can put away its ideological bunting for another year. Only those paid to do so, and the ideologically committed, will continue the dreary business of, among other things, reading out a welcome to country message. ‘’I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we are meeting and pay my respects to their elders past and present.’’ Why do otherwise intelligent people do this? No one believes it, it does no good, and it perpetuates the myth that land is everything. Land is a platform for the brilliance of humans to perform upon. Without skills and willpower, it comes to nought. Unless, and until, the Aboriginal industry learns this, the blighted lives of the smallest part of Aboriginal Australia, those sitting in the dumps of Aboriginal settlements such as, Utopia, in the Northern Territory, will never change. Right on time for Reconciliation Week, the broadcast of John Pilger’s latest excoriation of Australians, Utopia, proves the point. Not a single, sensible, answer to the plight of Aborigines at Utopia was evinced in two insufferable hours of bile. The one bright moment was the interview with Warren Snowdon, for 23 years a Labor federal member from the Northern Territory. ‘’Why haven’t you fixed it’’, Pilger berates. “What a puerile question,’’ Snowdon responds. Puerile indeed, because Pilger and Snowdon share a cause: Aboriginal self-determination. Snowdon has been a foot soldier in the cause his entire career. He has spent more of your money, and mine, on the failed experiment than any 1970s activist thought possible. Puerile, because Snowdon should have informed Pilger that most Aborigines live in the city and are doing well. They are making a contribution on their land. Land that they have purchased as freehold. They are secure, healthy, moderately wealthy and wise beyond John Pilger’s, and any traditional Aborigine’s, imagination. Snowdon should have informed Pilger that Australians give more than $25 billion per year to Aborigines — $45,000 per head, compared with $20,000 for other Australians. Aborigines have three times the amount spent on their schooling, and five times the amount spent on health services and housing, as non-Aborigines. Pilger would not have cared for such facts, because the film is not about Utopia the place. It is about an imagined society in the mind of John Pilger. Despite 40 years of evidence that self-determination kills its own, Pilger persists. Other than professional Aboriginal leaders, Pilger did not interview any successful Aborigines. He did not seek to understand the pathways by which Aborigines become successful. He did not inform viewers about scholarships, or about removing children from harm. He did not inquire why some children are brutalised and not taken into care. He did not acknowledge that in 99 deaths in custody not one showed police at fault. He did not acknowledge that the leading case in the Stolen Generation’s cause failed. Pilger’s utopia of the mind is a “genuine’’ treaty between black and white. The object is to “share resources’’. Aborigines can be landlords and the white man can toil and produce wealth, build the skyscrapers and the beach houses that, in the film, Pilger disdains, but in logic tolerates, so long as the Aboriginal overlord gets a cut. John Pilger’s mind seems to grasp economics in other contexts. He had to raise funds for his film. His backers, unless philanthropists, expected a return for their investment. Presumably he sold the rights to screen the film to SBS. It sold advertising time to Telstra, Optus, Origin, Officeworks, Energex, Eclipse Mints, Galaxy 5, Medibank and K Mart. For these companies, a commercial decision is based on an estimate of the audience numbers, incomes and spending habits of viewers. Or, at least, I hope that was the basis of the calculation. I sincerely hope that no executive bought advertising as its contribution to reconciliation. Because, dear executive, John Pilger, and most of the characters he interviewed, are the problem. These are architects of a machine designed to screw money from the likes of you on the basis of guilt. These are architects that deny the lessons of their own lives: how they came to be educated and earning. They did so without a treaty or mention in the constitution. They broke free from foul circumstances, or were taken, to be given a second chance. Some made it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:45
|
|