"Geeze" is one Australian spelling for "Jesus" when used blasphemously. (There are others: "Christ on a bike!", "Jesus fucken Christ!", and so on.)
"Geeze" is generally used in contexts like that of the grandparent post, where the speaker is pointing out an error, or something. Australians will know what I mean, even if the rest of you don't.
I frequently put comments like this (/* UGLY HACK ALERT */) in code I'm not particularly proud of. It makes it easier to find when (if) you work out how to fix it, and it also alerts the poor bastard who inherits it after you've moved on that there's a potential source of problems.
Australia, like (I guess) America is full of wankers who insist on owning a 4WD for no good reason (maybe they feel inadequate, if you get my drift). In 26 years in the army, I've gone to a lot of remote places in Australia, and, except for the ones where we had to use a helicopter to get there, there's maybe three places I actually needed a 4WD vehicle. Everywhere that most people would actually want to go can be easily reached in an early model Holden (kind of like a Chevy, only smaller).
I just love how, every time there's a story on/. about global warming, the neocons and (to a lesser extent) libertarians all slither out from under their respective rocks and say, in a kind of asinine chorus, "There is no global warming", or something, and then go on to claim that, in any case, human ingenuity will fix the non-problem.
A scientist friend of mine (she's a geologist) pointed out that doctors (medical ones, not real ones) are _not_ scientists, although one would hope they've had some basic scientific training at some point. (Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist, I'm a computer scientist.)
Although I've been in the position I've described and have consequently accepted jobs I didn't much care for at lower pay than I'd like, and have continuously re-educated myself and changed careers, I was actually speaking more generally about the relationship between an employer who needs, say, a welder but doesn't want to pay a fair wage, and an out-of work welder who realises that if he doesn't accept the shitty wage, he and his family will starve in the gutter, and someone else in a similar position will accept the job, even though it doesn't pay quite enough to live on. So, unless you have a rather idiosyncratic definition of "equal", this is _not_ a relationship in which there is equal bargaining power.
>... the employees and employers are free to decide whether or not the deal is fair...
You've never been unemployed with a wife, three children, and a mortgage to support, have you? In Australia, that's almost doable, but I doubt that it is in the US because you don't have much in the way of a social safety-net.
The deal is only fair if each party has equal bargaining power, which simply isn't the case here.
Clearly you're lying, or you wouldn't have noticed you should have disabled sigs.
I _like_ his sig.
Re:United using "Ted" to target the unions?
on
United Paper Shuffle
·
· Score: 1
Qantas is doing much the same thing in Australia with a cheap airline called, I think, Jetstar (or something). It's just a way to reduce costs by screwing your workforce while retaining those disproportionate executive salaries.
They're also going to offshore their maintenance. I think I'll never fly with Qantas again, as I doubt if they'll be the safest ailine in the world for much longer.
Yeah - I probably could, but I wouldn't bother. I've found a really nice scotch which is matured in chardonnay casks, and I don't drink the stuff fast enough to justify trying to make my own.
I believe the parts of the distillate you throw out are the first cup (methanol) and the last cup (fusel oils), btw. They aren't a problem when they're in your beer, but they'll kill you once you've distilled them.
I'm not too interested in distilling - I very rarely drink spirits, and I'd rather pay for something good than make something second-rate. Beer's easy, but I think a decent whiskey would be much harder to make, and not really cost-effective in the quantities I drink.
I guess that putting a working still together would be pretty satisfying though.
I intend to try mashing when I retire - it's a bit too labour-intensive to fit around work, whereas using extract gives almost as good a result with about 10% of the effort.
As for distillation, it's illegal in Australia also (although I've never heard of anyone getting busted unless they were trying to sell it), but it's apparently legal in New Zealand. The home-brew shops here all sell reflux stills for extracting *cough* "essential oils". They also provide, just to satisfy a quite natural intellectual curiousity of course, complete instructions on how to, in principle, distill spirits. Just for information, you understand.
I've been avoiding using grain for just that reason. If you make it out of malt syrup and hop pellets (all of which can be bought cheaply in bulk) and recycle the yeast for a few brews, it is considerably cheaper (about $A12 for 22 litres - which is about 60 stubbies, only I keg it these days). I don't even usually need to worry about temperature control. I brew ales in summer (the temperature gets a bit high sometimes, giving a bit of a butterscotch taste, but it's rare I have a complete failure) and lagers in winter (they ferment at around 13C, which is a bit high, but it works OK). My only energy cost is boiling about 6 litres of water with the malt and hops for about 30-40 minutes. Adelaide has a pretty good climate for brewing.
Yes, the theory of evolution is just another _scientific_ theory, but there aren't any credible alternative scientific theories, as far as I know (I'm not a biologist). Creationism in its various forms is _not_ a scientific theory, as it is not falsifiable (if you don't believe me, try talking rationally to a creationist). It's theology, which is a formal system (kind of like Euclidean geometry, but considerably less rigorous).
I'm really glad we don't have to deal with this crap as much in Australia as you do in the US (although unfortunately the lunatics are gaining ground here).
I'm not European (except by some of my ancestry, which happens to include, but is not limited to, Italian, French, Scottish, English and Cherokee), I'm Australian (and yes, my government is at least as intransigent as yours about global warming - I didn't vote for the fuckers, as I still haven't forgiven them for trying to conscript me for Vietnam). I'd _love_ you to be able to back up those figures you've so blithely quoted. (You'll note that I admitted the figure I plucked from my memory could have been wrong.) I doubt that the US actually produces 50% of the world's food (I'm pretty sure fish don't grow in the midwest, just for a start).
I'm pretty sure, also, that the Sahara jungle was largely destroyed by the locals grazing goats, not a European lust for exotic wood.
Another question people like you avoid - can we really afford China to have a lifestyle like those of us in the developed world? (answer: no.) In which case, is it fair of us to insist that we keep our standard of living at their expense? (answer: no.) We Australians are big on a fair go (although you wouldn't think so looking at our current government who are a bunch of neo-liberal arseholes).
I note with interest that you haven't addressed my main point - without an environment, there is no economy.
The main reason that it works out that the US should pay for it is because, per capita at least (and possibly overall), the US is the single largest source of CO2 (25% of human-caused CO2 is a figure that popped into my mind, but it may be incorrect). Most western European countries have already done the hard work of reducing their emissions significantly.
The thing people like you seem to ignore is that, if the environment is fucked, the economy simply doesn't exist any more.
Actually, there was never any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq until after the US pretaliatory invasion, so you're down to 33%.
Also, I seriously doubt that Iraq is going to be free of rule by brutal, evil monsters in the near future (whatever the outcome of the coming election and the ensuing civil war), so you're now down to about 0%.
Slashdot Mirror
"Geeze" is one Australian spelling for "Jesus" when used blasphemously. (There are others: "Christ on a bike!", "Jesus fucken Christ!", and so on.)
"Geeze" is generally used in contexts like that of the grandparent post, where the speaker is pointing out an error, or something. Australians will know what I mean, even if the rest of you don't.
I frequently put comments like this (/* UGLY HACK ALERT */) in code I'm not particularly proud of. It makes it easier to find when (if) you work out how to fix it, and it also alerts the poor bastard who inherits it after you've moved on that there's a potential source of problems.
Actually, I always thought you just got a hand-job in a Jag ...
You must be a libertarian. Dipshit.
Australia, like (I guess) America is full of wankers who insist on owning a 4WD for no good reason (maybe they feel inadequate, if you get my drift). In 26 years in the army, I've gone to a lot of remote places in Australia, and, except for the ones where we had to use a helicopter to get there, there's maybe three places I actually needed a 4WD vehicle. Everywhere that most people would actually want to go can be easily reached in an early model Holden (kind of like a Chevy, only smaller).
Actually, not getting laid would be a bonus. After all, there's already too many of us ...
I just love how, every time there's a story on /. about global warming, the neocons and (to a lesser extent) libertarians all slither out from under their respective rocks and say, in a kind of asinine chorus, "There is no global warming", or something, and then go on to claim that, in any case, human ingenuity will fix the non-problem.
A scientist friend of mine (she's a geologist) pointed out that doctors (medical ones, not real ones) are _not_ scientists, although one would hope they've had some basic scientific training at some point. (Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist, I'm a computer scientist.)
Your comments are, I'm afraid, asinine.
Although I've been in the position I've described and have consequently accepted jobs I didn't much care for at lower pay than I'd like, and have continuously re-educated myself and changed careers, I was actually speaking more generally about the relationship between an employer who needs, say, a welder but doesn't want to pay a fair wage, and an out-of work welder who realises that if he doesn't accept the shitty wage, he and his family will starve in the gutter, and someone else in a similar position will accept the job, even though it doesn't pay quite enough to live on. So, unless you have a rather idiosyncratic definition of "equal", this is _not_ a relationship in which there is equal bargaining power.
> ... the employees and employers are free to decide whether or not the deal is fair ...
You've never been unemployed with a wife, three children, and a mortgage to support, have you? In Australia, that's almost doable, but I doubt that it is in the US because you don't have much in the way of a social safety-net.
The deal is only fair if each party has equal bargaining power, which simply isn't the case here.
And he was deaf from either STDs or French artillery (I forget which).
At least he wasn't deaf from standing too close to the drummer in a rock band.
Clearly you're lying, or you wouldn't have noticed you should have disabled sigs.
I _like_ his sig.
Qantas is doing much the same thing in Australia with a cheap airline called, I think, Jetstar (or something). It's just a way to reduce costs by screwing your workforce while retaining those disproportionate executive salaries.
They're also going to offshore their maintenance. I think I'll never fly with Qantas again, as I doubt if they'll be the safest ailine in the world for much longer.
Yeah - I probably could, but I wouldn't bother. I've found a really nice scotch which is matured in chardonnay casks, and I don't drink the stuff fast enough to justify trying to make my own.
I believe the parts of the distillate you throw out are the first cup (methanol) and the last cup (fusel oils), btw. They aren't a problem when they're in your beer, but they'll kill you once you've distilled them.
I'm not too interested in distilling - I very rarely drink spirits, and I'd rather pay for something good than make something second-rate. Beer's easy, but I think a decent whiskey would be much harder to make, and not really cost-effective in the quantities I drink.
I guess that putting a working still together would be pretty satisfying though.
Ultraviolet (that's the _real_ Ultraviolet Catastrophe ...)
That's what you get for living in Melbourne ...
I intend to try mashing when I retire - it's a bit too labour-intensive to fit around work, whereas using extract gives almost as good a result with about 10% of the effort.
As for distillation, it's illegal in Australia also (although I've never heard of anyone getting busted unless they were trying to sell it), but it's apparently legal in New Zealand. The home-brew shops here all sell reflux stills for extracting *cough* "essential oils". They also provide, just to satisfy a quite natural intellectual curiousity of course, complete instructions on how to, in principle, distill spirits. Just for information, you understand.
I've been avoiding using grain for just that reason. If you make it out of malt syrup and hop pellets (all of which can be bought cheaply in bulk) and recycle the yeast for a few brews, it is considerably cheaper (about $A12 for 22 litres - which is about 60 stubbies, only I keg it these days). I don't even usually need to worry about temperature control. I brew ales in summer (the temperature gets a bit high sometimes, giving a bit of a butterscotch taste, but it's rare I have a complete failure) and lagers in winter (they ferment at around 13C, which is a bit high, but it works OK). My only energy cost is boiling about 6 litres of water with the malt and hops for about 30-40 minutes. Adelaide has a pretty good climate for brewing.
Yes, the theory of evolution is just another _scientific_ theory, but there aren't any credible alternative scientific theories, as far as I know (I'm not a biologist). Creationism in its various forms is _not_ a scientific theory, as it is not falsifiable (if you don't believe me, try talking rationally to a creationist). It's theology, which is a formal system (kind of like Euclidean geometry, but considerably less rigorous).
I'm really glad we don't have to deal with this crap as much in Australia as you do in the US (although unfortunately the lunatics are gaining ground here).
Your ignorance of history is matched only by your ability to fail to get the point.
I'm not European (except by some of my ancestry, which happens to include, but is not limited to, Italian, French, Scottish, English and Cherokee), I'm Australian (and yes, my government is at least as intransigent as yours about global warming - I didn't vote for the fuckers, as I still haven't forgiven them for trying to conscript me for Vietnam). I'd _love_ you to be able to back up those figures you've so blithely quoted. (You'll note that I admitted the figure I plucked from my memory could have been wrong.) I doubt that the US actually produces 50% of the world's food (I'm pretty sure fish don't grow in the midwest, just for a start).
I'm pretty sure, also, that the Sahara jungle was largely destroyed by the locals grazing goats, not a European lust for exotic wood.
Another question people like you avoid - can we really afford China to have a lifestyle like those of us in the developed world? (answer: no.) In which case, is it fair of us to insist that we keep our standard of living at their expense? (answer: no.) We Australians are big on a fair go (although you wouldn't think so looking at our current government who are a bunch of neo-liberal arseholes).
I note with interest that you haven't addressed my main point - without an environment, there is no economy.
The main reason that it works out that the US should pay for it is because, per capita at least (and possibly overall), the US is the single largest source of CO2 (25% of human-caused CO2 is a figure that popped into my mind, but it may be incorrect). Most western European countries have already done the hard work of reducing their emissions significantly.
The thing people like you seem to ignore is that, if the environment is fucked, the economy simply doesn't exist any more.
(hunches shoulders) sorry.
Still, the situation of your average Iraqi isn't actually particularly fucking amusing. (Sorry for typos - I'm pissed.)
Actually, there was never any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq until after the US pretaliatory invasion, so you're down to 33%.
Also, I seriously doubt that Iraq is going to be free of rule by brutal, evil monsters in the near future (whatever the outcome of the coming election and the ensuing civil war), so you're now down to about 0%.