Jerry_Atrick

Looks shopped

Your 'aving a larrf

Of a different type of "footy", what is it about soccer that brings out the worst in people? I can understand in the northern areas of England, where they spend more on soccer than anything else, and for many, it is all they have in their lives? But Australia? A mate of my brother is English and when he sees a riggers or AFL game, he is fine; as soon as the round ball comes out, be takes on a new personality and goes totally aggressive. In Melbourne, they blocked off Swan street asa people were going troppo:

I started my days playig Aussie rules, but as a 62kg 5'6" rover getting knocked out a few times, my father suggested I play soccer instead. The players in that code were not quite of body-on-the-line as ruggers or AFL, which allowed me to quickly establish a regular spot on the side - I imprted a bit more physicality into our team. But the fans go nuts! I was playing in one of the more senior leagues in Vic - we used to get a couple of hundred to our games, and a few times we had to stop the game because if pitch invasions or the police having to stop the game because of crowd violence. I stopped playing when I was 19. Yeah, there has been some violence at AFL and rugby games, but nothing like soccer. 

I gave it away when I was 19 as it wasn't worth the off-pitch aggro, and the general environment was not as colegiate as in the other major codes.

All levles are pretty bad...

With prok barelling, corruption and the like, it doesn't matter what level/s you get rid of.. All the carp will persist at whatever levels are left.

Takes balls, but this is what is needed: https://www.ft.com/content/39d4678d-a7e1-4fce-b8d8-eb799cfed3e6

The other thing to think about, is that if each successive government takes over an economy that is worse than when the previous government took over, unless there is massive real growth in the economy, there is an ever diminishing capability of the government to meet the demands of a progressively more complex society and balance the books/stimulate that real growth without people being prepared to pay more.

Quite remarkably, I read yesterday in the F, that in the UK, 53% of households are net recipients of government welfare disbursements. That is not sustainable in the long term. However, when you tell business to pay their people properly, they scream it will make them uncompetitive nationally and internationally, drive up prices, etrc. The reality it all has to be paid for eventually.

I was reading an article in  The Age today, that was a syndication of the UK Terrorgraph, singing the praises of Musk in DOGE (and referring to the didgy savings claimed by musk with no challenge). One thing that I did agree with what Musk was quoted as saying.. The west is in a downard spiral with no real exit until it goes broke.. The level of debt globally are astronimical (and you think Vic has problems).

There is one way to fix it, but it will be politically unpalatable because taxing those that have the means, will result in a campaign against the politicians, and they don't want to fight that one.

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

What's next to be outlawed . Petrol engines !

How progressive of you, Spacey 😉

Secton 6 of the Controlled Weapons act deals with carrying (concealed or not) controlled weapons, of which a machete is likely to be included: https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-03/90-24aa075-authorised.pdf

Basically  it is illegal to carry one without a lawful excuse. There are different penalties that apply based on where it is carried.

26 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

"If you did, I would take it".

That sums up perfectly what he and his mates are about. Nothing about doing what's best.

What is the cost.. and is any money to be made from developing these residential towers - or are they all social with rents designed to fund ongoing maintenance and operating costs?

I am not sure how much Richmond station needs to be refreshed, but the state certainly needs housing, so it is a question of can the state afford not to do it?

However, I guess if the state can't fund c $3.8m/year for womens crisis housing: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/new-high-security-shelters-for-women-in-crisis-to-sit-empty-during-family-violence-epidemic-20250529-p5m36a.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_national (bhind a paywall, but turn off javascript), then things must be dire financially.

But, you forget, the Allan government has very little room to move. I am not saying she is great or anything like that, but her taking on the premiership was taking on a poisoned chalice. Yes, she was part of the Andrews' government and is partially to blame. But, Victoria's debt woes have been in the making for many years; the differnce being at least Andrews invested in the state - most necessary, but some not so. The economic performance of Napthine/Bailieau saw some minor increase in growth, mainly attributed to a population influx. However, debt continued to grow, productivity contracted and overall longer term investment slowed. At least Andrews' brought strong, albeit unsustained growth to Victoria and the money stayed more or less in the state. Allan has some real challenges now that the core Australian economy is slowing, the effects of COVID (some arguably self-inflicted). Remember Ted Baillieu (I will get the Spelling right) dramatcially resigned leaving a difficult economic predicament for Napthine, who was unceremoniously booted out by the electorate.

But,  we also forget, in terms of the Australian economy, the states have less direct control over the direction of their economy than the federal government. So, for Baillieau/Napthine, they had the same challenges. And this is the reason why I asked are state governments now effectively redundant? For example, although a lot of politics was made out of Andrews attempting a Victorian trade agreement with China (and I also disagree with that notion), it was overruled by the federal government and no challenge was made to the High Court about the constitional validity of either side (though the constitution is poretty clear it vests with teh federal government). Andrews say a way of improving growth an investment with a trade agreement with China - rightly or wrongly - but he couldn't pull that lever in an attempt improve the economy. State governments can't raise income tax, sales tax, etc.. Yet, they are responsible for education, health, legal systems (we have different laws in many areas per state), social services, etc.

So, can the Vic Labor government get any worse? Of course it can.. But it is not a Labor specific thing, except if you believe the press that has the highest concentration of ownerships which over-dramitises Labor and gives a free pass to the Lib/Nats..

I know they have acted as a buffer when Aussies have been dumb enough to elect Abo and SFM to power, but can Australia still afford state givernments?

Maybe because of the last two governments I mentioned, Austalia can't afford to be without them

Er.. hard to blame it on her.. it's symptomatic of all sorts of issues outside her control

Apparently a trade court has found the justification for his executive orders for tarrifs is illegal. It will be appealed but the Whitehouse is saying it is not the preserve of unelected judges to stand in the way of fixing a national emergency.. but the declaration of the national emergency is what the learned judge found to be illegal

And then they 8 them

I would hate for them to be in government, though.. I have voted for both sides.. long time ago, admittedly.

This is true, but in finding for the defendants, the judge has said BR-S has been proven on the balance of probabilities to have committed a war crime and also illegally killed a person.. This would have been necessary for the defence to succeed. It is not proven to the criminal standard.

When Chump was sued for damages for rape, it was proven to the same standard. He has not been found criminally liable for rape, so can't technically be called a rapist

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

Does not compute . in my life .

That's why you should leave it to the professionals 

Lovers' spat seems to be over for now as the Libs an Nats kiss and make up

Sorry Spacey.. that is not a point at all... Just because someone kills someone does not mean they are guilty of murder... But, if two people are invovled in the same killing, it is entirely feasible that one is guilty of murder and one of the lesser offence, or may be not guilty due to the cicrumstances..

The law is complex to make sure those that are only guilty of intentionally (or in the case of NSW, with reckless indifference to human life) are found guilty and we don't find people who fall short of the criminal liability for murder are not found guilty of it. Note, both intention and reckless have specific meanings in law that are narrower than normal parlance.

That doesn't mean they won't be found guilty of another offence related to killing a person.

Although a confession may result in a trial for murder, it is not necessarily the case. People confess for all sorts of reasons including pressure, guilt, or wanting to come out of the cold - as well as remorse for what they have done. Or they do it to protect a loved one from the clink. Different mental states will also weigh on a confession.

What will definitely happen as the result of a free and voluntary confession of anything, particularly murder is an investigation. Remember, the bar to proving murder is quite high and someone saying they murdered them will not necessarily go to trial if there is not enough supporting evidence, or they may go to trial for a lesser offence.  I read an article not too long ago that in Australia, about 20% of murderers who were convicted mainly on the evidence of a confession have had their convictions quashed since. Admittedly, a lot of this was where the police conduct in those confessions was of questionable nature, from downright threats and duress to leading questions and refusing answers until the right ones that matched the confessions were provided.

Just because someone confesses to something doesn't mean they will go to trial for it. The courts will still want some evidence to back up the confession that meets the bar for finding guilt.

(just kidding, of course!)

Basically Windows 11 is bloatware and spies on you, Yep you can switch off spy mode, just like today you can switch off one drive, but somehow one drive every so often switches itself on.

Linux doesn't have bloatware, and doesn't spy on you.. And, it is far more efficient and stable, to boot. So I am going to switch to Linux - and Mint is the particular flabour - for my main desktop which currently runs Windows 10.

I use my main desktop to work from home. And to work from home, I to have to connect using Windows. So, to do this from Linux, I am going to install a virtual machine, which is a piece of software that emulates a computer such as a desktop or a lap top. In that virtual machine, I will install Windows 11 so it runs in the emulator environment only and not the whole computer. I should then be able to use that emulator to work from home, while my desktop runs Linux free of bloat and spyware.

For those that are confused by my post, the more I look into Win 11, the more it is about bloatware and controlling/monitoring the user experience. Personally, I have had enough of Windows and will be transforming my main desktop, which is running Windows 10, to a Linux desktop - most likely the mint distirbutiuon: https://linuxmint.com/

Linux does everything that Windows does, but better, and more. There are some issues with device drivers and, although I am not into gaming, some gaming platforms, but that is because those he driver companies and games platform companies don't yet properly support Linux and so the linux community try their own ports to Linux where they can. This is becoming less and less a problem.

Although I can install Libreoffice for all of my word, powerpoint, excell, and access needs, I prefer the MS Office Suite (as well out Outlook over Thunderbird. I have a CD version (2019, I think, but ut could be later), so it needs Windows natively to run. No problems. Will install wine (https://www.winehq.org/), and then install MS Office from the disk. Hey presto. 

There is a product called Citrix. It is a run time environment that allows applications to be easily deployed in Windows environments and then allows highly secure remote access. This pwoers a lot of the companies environments and is most ubiquitous for working from home. We use it. You can install what is called a Citrix Workspace on your own Windows, Linux, or Mac computer and safely access yur work Citrix desktop environment, and it will ensure nothing crosses between it and your personal device.  However, for some reason, our company has nobbled Citrix so only the Citrix workspace will work on Windows and Mac machines - not Linux - despite Linux being the safest of all environments.

Because instead of having my personal computer running Wndows 11, which I don't want, I will then install a virtual machine, possibly virtualbox https://www.virtualbox.org/. 

So far, everything is totally free and very functional. I may have to buy an OEM version of Winn 11, as it won't detect a previous Win O/S. At work, we have been told we have to upgrade to Win 11 in orders for Citrix Workspace to allow connections to the work environment. So, I will create a virtual machine (likely on Virtualbox), install Win 11 on it, install the Citrix workspace software and that will be it. When I am working, I will use that to connect to my work machine, but when not in use, it can be switched off and I will be using Linux natively from there on in.. Assumning Citrix works with Win 11 on a Virtualbox.

While the last video points to a stark and bleak existence, the below video largely resonates reflects my thoughts in that AI. I  think I have said somewhere in these fora before, unlike previous technology, which created different jobs to what it displaced, AI has the ability to reach critical mass of laying off workers without replacement of the job. I still think that AI cannot develop itself; there will be some prescience required to make the next technological leap. However, it will be bloody good at incremental improvements, which can happen much faster than with humans.

I don't fully subscribe to the  armageddon scenario is that AI controls itself, which the below vid is about. I am not sure that will ever be the case, though it undoubtedly technologically is able to. I think ti will be controlled by billionaires ultimately, as governments are relying on them to create the AI. The billionaires will only do something if they get a return from it. The problem when AI does cause mass displacement of human labour is that the asset values  of the billionaires will diminish because most of the masses will not have money to spend, the assets of the billionaires will no longer derive the sort of income prior, and as business assets are valued based on the income they produce or their sellable value for other uses, if they can be, the wealth of billionaires will reduce. And they won't like that at all. What will keep billionaires' ability to make more money, oddly, is a wealthy population. And anything that derives its value largely from advertising will be the first to decline as advertisers will be slashed.

Also, the government will not have any money in the kitty. The very people it has been squeezong instead of the ones it should have been squeezing will have no income or require state welfare. With no money to spend on things like defence, they government will become very exposed. So, it too, relies on a wealthy masses, in the absence of taxing billionaires. Now, to keep the military going and to keep some form of stability as a result, will take some money. The government won't have it, so it will have to tax the billionaires. The billionaires won't like that one bit, so they use their vast resources which have been trasnferring to them from the rest of the populaton for years, and they either buy the military or buy their own. And then that will be the geneises of the next global war - not between countries, but between classes. (Of course, there will be a national backfrop as places like China don't have the billionaire tax issue.. if they don't want it).

The government could intorduce a universal basic income to keep the money flowing, but that money has to come from somewhere.. and the lower/middle classes no longer have it. Taxes needed and only the billionaires have it. Hmmm... See above. Notwithstanding, AI wil be churning out all sorts of products and services, but there is no one, except AI, to consume them. And I don't see the need for a lot of things like food, furniture, toys, etc for AI robots, so there is going to be a hell of an oversupply in amny product and service categories because without money, it doesn't matter how cheap the godds and services are made, they won't be able to be purchased in the volumes they are now.. Whole industries go broke, lawlessness breaks out to survice, and the apocolypse is coming.

Or we could start now.. start taxing everyone who can bear it fairly; start investing in people, start investing in the masses as well, so they can prepare for what is ahead. There have been a few experiments of applying the universal basic income as a non means tested safety net, and it has been more positive than negative. Ironically, under this system rather than the punitive systems on unemployment benefits these days, there is more econimically active adults, more innovation, and more entrepenureship (sp?).. Of course, to fund it, the billionaires and multi-national corporations would have to pay their tax.

Anyway, here is the vid:

On my list of things to do next weekend on my laptop which is about 5 or 6 years old but plenty powerful enough is to put on a virtual machine (have to do the research for the best one), set it up so it thinks it meets all Windows 11 requiements, install windows 11 on it, install the Citrix workstation and see if I can reliably connect to work with it. If so, I am installing Linux (probably Mint) natively on my main desktop which is plenty powerful and installing Win 11 as Citrix will test it has the latest updates before connecting, and then use it only for work. I already know I can run my office suite using wine on Linux.

When it comes to the flu vaccine, I am an anti-vaxxer.. Solely on the basis I don't want to admit my age (and as a result I qualify for it free).