Jump to content

mminion

Member
  • Posts

    2347
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mminion

  1. Hi Mosaic It's a BIOS setting. Just after turning on the PC (well before Window's loads) you'll see a "Hit F1" (it will be one of the F keys) to edit BIOS settings (it will flash up for under 5 sec so you'll need to be quick) In BIOS you'll have something about "Boot Order" and one of the settings will be "USB". You'll need to turn it to off/disabled for USB. Cheers Matt
  2. I thought the wife was a ball breaker and then I saw this.... This guy takes a 500kg kick to the balls http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/02/the-scie...k-to-the-balls/ Cheers Matt
  3. Mungo, Yes it was a simple question and my answer is not simple enough to be pigeon holed into one of only two options, hence I suggested you review the topic. I’ve made my viewpoints in the month long debate, I even did a quick one line summary in my reply to your question, which it would seem you didn’t like it as it didn’t fit into your black or white approach. I don’t think you’ll find a single educated person that believes “man is the culpritâ€ÂÂÂÂÂ, the science clearly shows there are background cycles at play, the real question is “What level of effect is man causing above and beyond the natural cycle?†Once that question is answered the next is "What are the results, both short and long of those effects?" As I said multiple times, we can't really for sure answer either question. We have ideas and theories but the only factor that will prove/disprove them is time. Cheers Matt
  4. Review the topic, that idea that your on the left or right ignores that there's a WIDE gap in the middle The same way IMO it's silly to believe that 6.5 billion don't have any effect on the world's climate. As I've said multiple times, there are systems at work that we (humans) don't understand, that said that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and minimise our impact on those systems. Cheers Matt
  5. "Also interesting that they all but totally ignore the impact of volcanoes on climate" Thats something I've touched on before... the below talks about a BIG eruption that until now we had no idea about. There are theories that eruptions like this are from underwater volanco's. The so called "jockey stick" may not be part of a pattern, it maybe just a group of random events. "Previously Unknown Volcanic Eruption Helped Trigger Cold Decade" The discovery, published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters, offers an explanation as to why the decade from 1810 to 1819 is regarded by scientists as the coldest on record for the past 500 years. “If you look at the size of the signal we found in the ice cores, it had to be huge. It was bigger than the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which killed hundreds of people and affected climate around the world.†Led by a chemist from South Dakota State University, the team of scientists made its discovery after analyzing chemicals in ice samples from Antarctica and Greenland in the Arctic, where the scientists visited and drilled ice cores three years ago. “We found large amount of volcanic sulfuric acid in the snow layers of 1809 and 1810 in both Greenland and Antarctica,†said professor Jihong Cole-Dai of SDSU’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. Cole-Dai said climate records show that not only were 1816  the so-called “year without a summerâ€ÂÂÂÂÂ and the following years very cold, the entire decade from 1810 to 1819 was probably the coldest for at least the past 500 years. Scientists have long been aware that the massive and violent eruption in 1815 of an Indonesian volcano called Tambora, which killed more than 88,000 people in Indonesia, had caused the worldwide cold weather in 1816 and after. Volcanic eruptions have a cooling effect on the planet because they release sulfur gases into the atmosphere that form sulfuric acid aerosols that block sunlight
  6. Nothing of the such, the post is simply in response to a calendar alert I placed (FHOG boost end) and a reflection on the year/last 6 months (something I've done before a number of times in this topic). If I was wrong I would have made the exact same type of post. Firstly, the blog talks about shorting Kodak, buying another OR avoiding the full photo sector.... what he fails to suggest is buying into one of electronic companies in which would mostly be making the digital devices (sorry but the smart guy in the room would be thinking that IMO) As to making money, the Australian mortgage market and the Big Four are closely linked (so even if you’re not buying/selling property you can trade its future success/failures) I saw this the other day... “On Wednesday (2/9) the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) released data showing that the Big Four banking groups in July, captured almost 100 per cent market share of the new mortgage market, valued at approximately $7 billion. Prior to the freeze in credit markets last year, the majors controlled roughly 60 per cent of the new mortgage market.†I don’t know of another market in which only 4 players have such control (while not good, that’s how it is)... any move in housing prices / mortgage defauls etc will be reflected in some way in the big 4’s SP. Cheers Matt
  7. http://www.morganstanley.com/views/gef/ Sovereign and inflation risks on the rise: Fifth, but not least, we think that sovereign risk and inflation risk will be a major theme for markets in 2010. The current issues surrounding Greece's fiscal problems are only a taste of things to come in many other advanced (note: not emerging) economies, in our view. We note that fiscal policy looks set to remain expansionary in all major economies next year, as it arguably should be, given the ‘triple B' recovery which still requires support. However, markets are likely to increasingly worry about longer-term fiscal sustainability, and rightly so. Importantly, the issue is not really about potential sovereign defaults in advanced economies. These are extremely unlikely, for a simple reason: most of the government debt outstanding in advanced economies is in domestic currency, and in the (unlikely) case that governments cannot fund debt service payments through new debt issuance, tax increases or asset sales, they can instruct their central bank to print whatever is needed (call it quantitative easing). Thus, in the last analysis, sovereign risk translates into inflation risk rather than outright default risk. We expect markets to increasingly focus on these risks in the year ahead, pushing inflation premia and thus bond yields significantly higher. Put differently, the next crisis is likely to be a crisis of confidence in governments' and central banks' ability to shoulder the rising public sector debt burden without creating inflation. > I don't dispute it’s a risk, more globally then locally... but at the same time inflation is the bigger risk Cheers Matt
  8. We end 2009 with an unemployment rate 5.7% and housing prices up 6-7% YTD. We didn't even get close to the double digit unemployment rate predicted by some, nor a housing price bust. FHOG Boost halved at the end of September and disappears completely at midnight tonight... just like in October I don't think the drop in FHOB will have much effect given the increasing population and existing home owners upgrading. So 2010? I'll stick my neck out and predict housing prices will increase around 4%. Interest rates will have the greatest effect, in that FHOB will be squeezed into single digits. IMO Existing home owners will weather increasing rates very well... no mass panic selling, just a increasing number of foxtel disconnections and a drop in blue ray disc sales. Happy NYE Matt
  9. Forrest, I think it's time you came out with it... given the results of the poll, who in the household was right ? Cheers Matt
  10. FF and IE are very different beasts with how they hit a webserver. IE Request 1, Response to Request 1, Request 2, Response to Request 2, Request 3, Response to Request 3. FF Request 1, Request 2, Response to Request 1, Request 3, Response to Request 2, Response to Request 3. All that said, "server not found" is a more basic issue.... First thing would be to disable any Add-On's in FF. If that doesn't work (10-1 it's a Add-On) I'd be looking at disabling Anti-virus/Anti-Spyware software (i.e. it may have an exception for IE but not FF). If it's a AV issue you'd most likely have the same problem with Chrome (as it to would be missing the exception) Cheers Matt
  11. Geoq, Climategate IMO shows what we have always known, there are people within any system that stretch the truth to suite their personal opinions/goals. The exact same issue occurs in the medical profession... doctors that fudge trial results, doctors closely linked with drug companies (conflict of interest) and so on. What about local government councillors? If you believe the press they all on the take. Quickly on Wiki, all moderation is public... there are thousands of people with admin rights hence ask the question... why did no one question or reverse his actions (barring people) IF they didn't agree with them? Could it be they agreed with his admin actions, i.e. the "barred" contributors failed to follow Wiki's TOU or past warnings? Wiki is a wild place and if you review some of the reverses (rewrites) they are simply taking the page BACK to where it was before someone came and posted something without citing any references. Try it out, I could for example edit pages on nuclear weapon stockpiles and increase Russia's number by 100. The fact it's so easy to edit means no Australian UNI will accept wiki as a reference source. Cheers Matt
  12. Worth the read IMO, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...ange-mark-lynas "This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to." Cheers Matt
  13. Darth Vader, R2-D2 and several stormtroopers rang the opening bell on Wall Street today, kicking off the New York Stock Exchange. LOL, that's kind of funny. What does it say about Wall Street, when the most evil Lord in the galaxy is invited to kick off the trading? BTW The image is real, Google it and you'll see it really happened yesterday on NYSE
  14. Forrest, There is another factor.... what is being ironed. i.e. For shirts I point the board to the X but for things like pillow covers I find it doesn't matter which way it's pointed. I smell a multi million dollar research study here Cheers Matt
  15. Mosaic, Given the context (and my previous posts on population) it's not too hard to see I was being sarcastic when I said "....Nice". If the rising human outputs of CO2 isn't warming the planet (as per the models and lab experiments suggest) then one could easily suggest it's been absorbed elsewhere within the ecosystem and at a greater rate than expected (which is good news for everyone) I'd be pointing the finger at the oceans/seas, they are a wonderful CO2 sponge….but like all sponges, they act differently depending on temp and furthermore there is a max absorption point. Research is starting to show the CO2 soaked by a square km of ocean can vary from year to year from 18 to 41 million metric tons. The variation is caused by sea surface temperature & the thickness of the surface waters that had been thoroughly mixed by winds, waves and turbulence during the previous winter (The deeper that mixed surface layer is, the more nutrients are available for surface-dwelling, CO2-gulping phytoplankton during spring and summer months) It's worth pointing out the mean ocean temperature difference between the year that recorded 18m and 41m was 0.2 of a degree centigrade. And that's the point… what we think is only a small change (i.e. 2 degrees over 50 years) can have massive effects we are yet to understand. Cheers Matt
  16. "he understands that you need to do a cost benefit analysis in order to et the best bang for your efforts." I hear the exact same issue weekly but in relation to health spending... that said it's amazing the number of people that change position when faced with the care of a loved one. CBA works best when it effects someone else... humans really are a funny bunch "To date, actual temperatiures are falling further and further below the IPCC projections. So it is likely that the model projections are wrong = brings into doubt the impact of human CO2 gases." The model projections are wrong because we don't understand all the systems. Not understanding how something currently works doesn't mean you're not impacting it's future ability to function. Cheers Matt
  17. Got to love the tag "ex-environmentalist"... he believes in climate change. His own words... "Climate change is a 100-year problem  we should not try to fix it in 10 years." "he opposes the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, and argues that we should instead adapt to short-term temperature rises as they are inevitable, and spend money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions, and on other important world problems such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition." "Lomborg spent a year as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned a master's degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a Ph.D. in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994. He has no training in climatology, meteorology, or the physical sciences, but is trained in the use of mathematics and statistics in the social sciences." So instead of trying to fix the issue, he is proposing we live with it and focus on further increasing the world's population.... nice. Cheers Matt
  18. Mosaic1996 I saw the question but after seeing your fine example of cherry picking questions to answer earlier in the week I decided not to answer it (sorry but you can't have it both ways). We can either bog the topic down and demand each answers every question, or we move on... just like I did days ago. "our current dams are coping reaonably well even with the hugh increases in demand from an increasing population" Can anyone say Water Restrictions? Didn't they only just end (and in some places still remain in force) Yes the dams are higher now than last year.. but that alone shows the levels go up and down all the time. Flooding even more large areas and cutting off existing water flows VS creating a second system that you can turn off/on depending on existing dam levels. That's the point, desal is a second system... mass storm water storage could easily be a third. Just relying on one system IMO is simply asking trouble. "I suspect that the current process (including COP15) is about as good as we can get. There have been a lot of smart people working on it to date, and this is the best that they can come up with (in the real world).I have had enough trouble in the past managing the complexities of relatively simple multi-million dollar multi-discipline projects in the past to know that there are no simple solution to the questions that you pose." Some people are dead against the current process, hence posing the question. I've asked the same question personally and when asked "How else do we then" the argument defaults back to climate change is a myth. Cheers Matt BTW Focus, dreging active water supplies creates a number of issues (i.e. cloudy tap water for a number of weeks)
  19. Mosaic, Flash clearly pointed out he doesn't want "another beauracracy at the global level" I'm not hot on the idea either that said I'm not sure how else we tackle the issue... hence I posed those 3 questions. It's nice to see your trying to lower your impact, but it doesn't address my posed questions on how we globally set, enforce and encourage. Cheers Matt BTW Quickly on Dams VS Desal. Forget the environmental impact for a second... dams only work IF rainfall patterns remain the same.
  20. Hi Flash "I know you're not accusing anyone of this directly but this is the kind of thing which really gets on my tits" I'm simply quoting US focus group research (word for word) in an effort to help show the NRO's opinion may not be totally objective. "The setting up of another beauracracy at the global level to, at least initially, manage climate issues, takes it even further." Lets go back a step, it seems almost everyone here agrees that we should reduce the human "impact" on the environment. What's up for debate is how much that should be reduced AND/OR the effects of that impact on other natural systems (such as global warming). So I pose the question... if we want to reduce the human "impact" on the environment; How do we workout/set global targets ? How do we get all countries to do their "fair" share ? How do help the poorer countries do their fair share ? Personally I think the whole issue needs to be spilt up into smaller, easy to measure sections, i.e. Coal/Oil, Closure of all coal power plants by 20XX, Phasing out the petrol engine by 20XX.... and so on. Plans to simply cut reducutions by X% by 20XX leave it all to open to failure. Cheers Matt BTW I saw a interesting comment today, Russia is happy to agree to a 20% CO2 reduction (based on 1990 levels) because it's ALREADY under that level due the collapse of the communism.... just goes to show that setting a single global target just doesn't work.
  21. Macca2, "Until very recently they would not have run that story" Sorry a quick google shows thats not correct. CBS is a well respected news source BECAUSE it often reports/allows on both sides of the story (it's not like FOX). Cheers Matt
  22. "Finally, the media is starting to realise that perhaps it is all less than honest" The media? "By Mona Charen: Reprinted with permission from National Review Online." Go google.... "National Review Online", it's a very right wing political (Republican) opinion magazine. "National Review carries little corporate advertising and has never turned a profit. The magazine stays afloat by donations from subscribers and black-tie fund raisers around the country" (No surprise about the opinion piece when you understand who paid for it) A US think-tank American probed a little deeper to the levels of scepticism. It split citizens into six categories depending on how they felt about man-made climate change, from "alarmed" through to "dismissive". The genders were roughly equally represented in the middle groupings, but at the margins the divide was absolutely stark: "Almost two-thirds of the Dismissive are men (63%), the largest gender split among the six segments," the report concluded. What else did the survey reveal about the "dismissive" group? "More likely than average to be high income, well-educated, white men... much more likely to be very conservative Republicans... strongly endorse individualistic values, opposing any form of government intervention, anti-egalitarian, and almost universally prefer economic growth over environmental protection... have a specialized media diet, with a higher than average preference for media sources that reflect their own political point of view." We all need to (BOTH SIDES) spend the extra moment or two and try and find out who's behind the viewpoint, statistic and so on.. Cheers Matt
  23. The graphs need to be overlaid with the global volcanic activity (one of the main reasons for sudden direction change, both ways). How many here would base a trading decisions on BHP using 1 year old data ? what about 5 year old data ? 10, 20, 50, 100 ? I'm sure all will admit BHP has changed massively in the last 50 years (moved in and out of different ores, countries etc). Yet it still amazes me how many are willing to accept predictions/comments/opinions based on a planet that had 100 million, 500 million, 1 billion people. Half of the world's forests have disappeared at the hand of humankind, three quarters of these in the past 300 years and the majority within the past century. 22% of the total planet land mass is now agricultural areas. Go back 100 years and that figure drops in single digits. At some point the game changes so much that the old rules simply don't apply (or fit). The warm/iceage cycle would simply repeat if the global population was under 100 million people. I'm also surprised (given we are all investors) we don't accept the idea of bargaining. I don't believe in the alarmist ideas... but am happy to see them being raised as I know they will be watered down, if you start with only moderate ideas you end with cat piss agreement. IMO (as I said last week) we can stick with the current global population IF we lower the impact of it (i.e. take 6.5 billion people back to effects caused by 3-4 billion). Cheers Matt
  24. Mosaic, Read my post again (including those from last week). Nowhere I have proposed we have reached the world’s population capacity. What I am proposing is the rapid population growth affects the usefulness of the historic data when trying to create models. A system with 1 billion people VS a system with 6 billion people.. will both systems act in the exact same matter? The idea we can predict how the world works now is based on how it worked when it only had 1/2, 1/3, 1/6, or even 1/1000 of its current population. As to acid rain, “I don't understand why it will become a problem if it isn't already†It’s about time between gas release and rainfall. Most of the sources of nitrous oxide aren’t in the tropics, hence the time between gas release and rainfall can be days (or even weeks). Within that time the nitrous oxide dissipates into the higher atmosphere (above the rain clouds). If you increase the rainfall (side effect of warming) you decrease the time for dissipation and also trap it at the lower altitudes.... aka more acidic rain near nitrous oxide sources. Mark, “Knowing a bit about solar and costs your estimate of the cost is I suspect about 10% of the actual.†8 million households, 22 million Australians, Economy of scale for ordering 8 million systems + Technology advances due over the next 10 years. Feel free to do the sums. $450 X 22 Million = $9,900,000,000 (factor a little population growth and round up to $10 billion) $10 billion X 10 years = $100 billion Based on the size of the order, the Australian government simply buys the Chinese factory/company (cutting out all the middle men cost and profit margins). Now you can’t tell me the base cost price to produce, ship and install panels is more than $12,500 per household. Cheers Matt
  25. Mosaic, It's pretty clear which side of the fence you sit, care to justify why you believe 6.5 billion are having no major effect on the world at large ? Being a man of the land what happens when you double the number of cows in a paddock? Now tripe or quadtripe the number of cows... what happens now? What happens to a over farmed paddock, does it recover straight away or does it take a long time? All the models are based on past events... the past when the world population was 1, 2 or even 3 billion. Compare apples with apples, not apples with oranges. Earth has some very complex and wonderful systems that for the large part balance everything out... over time. What the world took a millennia to do (locking away CO2 in oil), we reverse in two centuries (the combustion of that oil). At some point we unbalance the system, we can either find out where that point is... try to stop just before we hit it. Cheers Matt
×
×
  • Create New...