whether we think it's a good idea was not the point... it is a part of the price discovery process of finding out 'how much money costs' whether you like it or not.
They don't seemed to have considered things like government bonds (this underlies the whole system of currency!), and more importantly in the last 100 years, financial futures (futures contracts on bonds and the like) which to quote the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT); "In 1975, the CBOT expanded its offering to include financial contracts, initially, the U.S. Treasury Bond futures contract which is now one of the world's most actively traded."
These are integral parts of the whole system in regulating and pricing the money supply! The article only seemed to have considered things that affect "money" as people would normally handle in the day to day running of our financial affairs; but still they chose to include inter-bank transfers, the armoured car, and the like.
Pre-1900 there is the invention of paper money itself... as once upon a time money was all gold and silver coin, the note being a promissary document to pay equivalent amount in bullion... and some banknotes still say things like 'the bank of x promises to pay the bearer the sum of... '.
Doesn't the strong anthropological theory take care of that? For example, let's assume there are a multitude of Universes (the Multiverse) with all possible values of each variable -- perhaps even with entirely different physics.
We see *this* Universe simply because we can't exist in any of the others. Intelligent life observes the Universe in which it is possible to have life present simply because it is the only Universe in which it possible to do so.
If you have an infinity of Universes there is a certainty of 1.0 this occurring (but also as Professor Davies has pointed out, it also means an almost 1.0 probability that we're all actually in a simulation, but anyway... ).
Some of those points in that 'Design evidences in the Cosmos' also strike me as misleading or inaccurate. For example, atmospheric CO2 levels. They have fluctuated wildly in the past without 'runaway' greenhouse effects. Geologically, the permanent ice-caps are *new*.
But to parallel the anthropological argument; the geological situation in which we find our civilisation able to develop to this point is very unique. We have had a recent, 10,000 year climate and geology window in which to get this far, without whcih it is debatable whether we would have developed large settled cities in which a scientific specialisation has developed. But aside from philosophical questions as to why you and I and not Urr-Ugghh the Mesopotamian pre-agricultural caveman are around to witness this against-all-odds wonder, we observe this state simply because, without this slender state existing, no one would be here to witness this fact.
Eventually some volcano will suddenly collapse into the sea or a big asteriod will hit us, or the icecaps will melt (or double in size) or a nearby star will go super nova or our solar system's galatic orbit will traverse the galatic plane, or some tother disaster we haven't forseen will smack us back to where we came from and there will be no-one left with the time (or just, no-one left) to ponder at the poverty of existence. Nature is brutal and random. Just thank your dumb blind luck that you will probably die before you get to witness such a thing happen.
i mean, where slowing drivers down is a priority (like, near a school), as opposed to other places where it's easy to find people speeding, but not so near critical places... like nice bits of speed limited bypass.
but you won't find me defending people who get caught speeding anywhere.
There's an ad running on NSW television currently that shows a two cars, one at 60km/h and one at 65km/h, brake at same time, but faster car hits obstruction at nearly 30km/h whereas slower car hits obtruction at 5 km/h. it says 50% of car speed is lost in the last 5 metres, so that 5km/h difference when brake is applied makes a 30km/h difference at collision point. in other words, the 5km/h -- which most people would say is a piddling amount not worthy of argument over -- can easily be the difference between life and death.
plenty of speed cameras in Sydney, and they usually stick 'em where they'll generate revenues and not where they might be needed. Doesn't stop people speeding though.
Yep, I used to work at a company that insisted anyone turning in timesheet data that showed over 45 hours in a week had to explain themselves. Wearing people out with long hours does not result in good quality work.
What the mgmt needed to say to the client was the following;
Please pick any TWO of the following; - On Time - On Budget - Good Quality
But being suckarse mgmt, they didn't know how to tell a client this. In the end, as well as screwing and pissing off their workers, they are doing a disservice to the client because they client won't get what they want anyway.
Second Bruce: G'day, Bruce!
First Bruce: Oh, Hello Bruce!
Third Bruce: How are you Bruce?
First Bruce: A bit crook, Bruce.
Second Bruce: Where's Bruce?
First Bruce: He's not 'ere, Bruce.
Third Bruce: Blimey, it's hot in here, Bruce.
First Bruce: Hot enough to boil a monkey's bum!
Second Bruce: That's a strange expression, Bruce.
First Bruce: Well Bruce, I heard the Prime Minister use it. "It's hot enough to boil a monkey's bum in here, your Majesty," he said and she smiled quietly to herself.
Third Bruce: She's a good Sheila Bruce, and not at all stuck up.
Second Bruce: Here! Here's the boss-fellow now! - how are you bruce? (Enter fourth Bruce with English person, Michael)
Fourth Bruce: 'Ow are you, Bruce?
First Bruce: G'day Bruce!
Fourth Bruce: Bruce.
Second Bruce: Hello Bruce.
Fourth Bruce: Bruce.
Third Bruce: How are you, Bruce?
Fourth Bruce: G'day Bruce.
Fourth Bruce: Gentleman, I'd like to introduce man from Pommeyland who is joinin' us this year in the philosophy department at the University of Woolloomooloo.
Everybruce: G'day!
Michael: Hello.
Fourth Bruce: Michael Baldwin, Bruce. Michael Baldwin, Bruce. Michael Baldwin, Bruce.
First Bruce: Is your name not Bruce?
Michael: No, it's Michael.
Second Bruce: That's going to cause a little confusion.
Third Bruce: Mind if we call you "Bruce" to keep it clear?
Fourth Bruce: Gentlemen, I think we better start the faculty meeting. Before we start, though, I'd like to ask the padre for a prayer.
First Bruce: Oh Lord, we beseech Thee, Amen!!
Everybruce: Amen!
Fourth Bruce: Crack tubes! (Sound of cans opening) Now I call upon Bruce to officially welcome Mr. Baldwin to the philosophy faculty.
Second Bruce: I'd like to welcome the pommy bastard to God's own Earth, and remind him that we don't like stuck-up sticky-beaks here.
Everybruce: Hear, hear! Well spoken, Bruce!
Fourth Bruce: Bruce here teaches classical philosophy, Bruce there teaches Haegelian philosophy, and Bruce here teaches logical positivism. And is also in charge of the sheep dip.
Third Bruce: What's New-Bruce going to teach?
Fourth Bruce: New-Bruce will be teaching political science, Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett, and Benaud.
Second Bruce: Those are all cricketers!
Fourth Bruce: Aww, spit!
Third Bruce: Hails of derisive laughter, Bruce!
Everybruce: Australia, Australia, Australia, Australia, we love you amen!
Fourth Bruce:Bruce: Crack tube! (Sound of cans opening) Any questions?
Second Bruce: New-Bruce, are you a Poofter?
Fourth Bruce: Are you a Poofter?
Michael: No!
Fourth Bruce: No. Right, I just want to remind you of the faculty rules: Rule One!
Everybruce: No Poofters!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way at all -- if there's anybody watching. Rule Three?
Everybruce: No Poofters!!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Four, now this term, I don't want to catch anybody not drinking. Rule Five,
Everybruce: No Poofters!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Six, there is NO... Rule Six. Rule Seven,
Everybruce: No Poofters!!
Fourth Bruce: Right, that concludes the readin' of the rules, Bruce.
First Bruce: This here's the wattle, the emblem of our land. You can stick it in a bottle, you can hold it in your hand.
Everybruce: Amen!
(NB: The Album versions continue with the Philosopher's song The TV version continues below....)
First Bruce: Right, let's get some Sheilas.
(An Aborigine bunts in with an enormous tray full of enormous steaks.)
Fourth Bruce: OK.
Second Bruce: Ah, elevenses.
Third Bruce: This should tide us over 'til lunchtime.
Second Bruce: Reckon so, Bruce.
First Bruce: Sydney Nolan! What's that! (points)
(Cut to dramatic close-up of Fourth Bruce's ear. Hold close-up. The superimposed arrow pointing t
Is that the bit where you use your Athlon-based supercomputer to calculate the effects of global warming but you have to include the effects of running your simulation? So can we simulate the climate effects of our own climate simulation? Does this needs to go into recursion? Can the simulation simulate itself? And will this question be answered in the Matrix Revolutions?
Okay. That's real efficient. Let's send all the mail to arrive in Australia to one location-- say Tasmania-- and let them figure it out and ship it from there.
Hobart airport is not an international airport.
And mail probably already does go to a single port of entry, using the most common port of entry for nearly everything that comes into Australia -- Kingsford Smith Airport, Mascot (Sydney). Or Port Melbourne or Botany Bay for surface mail. And it's much more efficient for Australia Post to work out how to get the letter to it's ultimate destination from there, than for the USPS to try and work out the best airport to use to get a letter to Wagga Wagga, NSW.
Let's think about the reverse, a letter that goes from Sydney NSW AU, to Punksatawney PA USA. Should Australia Post route that to some US port close to Pennslyvania? Or send it where they send every other bit of mail that goes to the USA -- somewhere in California I would guess, and then let the USPS figure out how to get it from LA to Pennslyvania?
Problem is that you don't have anything remotely convinent about that.
U. S. postcodes are 5 or 9 figures. Canadian and UK ones are six letters and numbers, possibly 7 in some places, and . Australian ones are apparently 4 numbers. Russian ones IIRC are six numbers.
Oh right, so because postcodes are variant lengths (which they already are), such a scheme whereby the country code is appended to the code to make a post code that is truly 'universally unique', is useless, whereas a scheme that completely replaces the full human readable address, with nearly unmemorisable number, is preferable. Despite the fact that no paper form on earth (let alone the databases this stuff is scanned into) will cope with it.
To me, this is just as stupid as Swatch's "internet time". It is just taking a paradigm that most humans are already conversant with and replacing them with a mixture of identical (but slightly rejigged) concepts and completely alien ones, to serve a benefit to a practical purpose that is marginal, at best. In the end, the best and most likely only concept it benefits is probably the patent holder's licencing fees.
Last of all, the scheme I outlined is already in use. Simply put one already fills in the full name or accepted abbreviation of the country of destination anyway.
if (destPostCode.validate(someCode)) { destPostCode.setPostCode(someCode); sendLetter(letter, destPostCode); } else { // present error to user } // continue...
That's just off the top of my head and I can see a million improvements to that code already.
I don't see what the problem is with putting the country and the post code is. After all the sending country doesn't care where postcode 'Potts Point NSW 2011 Australia' is they just need to send it to Australia. After it gets here then the Australia Post service can worry about where '2011' is.
In this proposed scheme they'd have to examine the code to find out what country to send it to in the first place. If they want "universal" code why not just pre- or post- pend the two letter country code on the code. So it becomes AU-2011. or US-90211. That's universal, and unique. And simple and HUMAN READABLE. If you don't care about human readability let's just allocate every address a unique barcode.
Not just build or buy and equip with aircraft. Operating the damn thing is the biggest cost. Many of those aircraft carriers that you see in the 'order of battle' (fleet lists) of third and second world nations simply hardly ever put to sea. And if you can't put to sea very often, your crew isn't very well trained... and then you've not got a very effective weapon.
Me, I want a gas turbine powered frigate, not a aircraft carrier.
Also the earth's day speeds up and slows up according to its distance from the Sun to conserve angular momentum. And tides (in both the ocean and crust) also change the earth's angular momentum. In fact, tides cause the day to get gradually longer over time.
See here for more complete info.
In Australia, certainly, no-one can stop you from taking any job you want. Bonded labour is not legal, full stop. I sign these agreements, they are not enforceable anyway.
i served on a ship in missile fire control radar. on the wall in the section where i worked there was a notice, which described in the event of imminent capture or scuttle, the order of components to destroy in decending order of preference (starting with frequency generating cyrstals and tubes), and what to use. which started with explosives, down through firearms, onto axes and sledgehammers, and even the maintenance tools if nothing else was available.
Im not expecting the government to do it, im just saying it'd be nice if they would. And if they can protect houses, why not these computers?
Votes. Nearly everyone lives in a house of some form after all. Especially people on the urban fringe "swinging voter" electorates. And all the nasty shitheads who think owning only a Nissan Patrol and not a Range Rover means they're a "battler", whereas an unemployed IT worker or some weirdos who collect old computers are just "bludgers" looking for a "handout" (as opposed to a "subsidy" which all aspiring Range Rover battlers should be entitled to - this is what is termed Howard's "aspirational politics" - aspire to a bigger handout than people less well off than yourself, the richer you get the bigger the handout). Sorry to be so blunt about it. Our government, and the attitude of the people it engenders, is appalling. IMO.
Sure it would be nice, but not realistic. This is the same government that slashed and burnt all the research funding remember. It's already spent all its available budget surplus keeping itself in power.
you are talking about the australian government here. they are profligate with the porkbarrelling but if it involves anything that is NOT from IN or ON the ground, i.e. if you can't plant it, grow it or dig it up, they wouldn't have a clue how to best to support it, nor be inclined. 'computers - thems fer intelectuals hur hur hur' says the prime minister.
Slashdot Mirror
whether we think it's a good idea was not the point ... it is a part of the price discovery process of finding out 'how much money costs' whether you like it or not.
They don't seemed to have considered things like government bonds (this underlies the whole system of currency!), and more importantly in the last 100 years, financial futures (futures contracts on bonds and the like) which to quote the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT); "In 1975, the CBOT expanded its offering to include financial contracts, initially, the U.S. Treasury Bond futures contract which is now one of the world's most actively traded."
... as once upon a time money was all gold and silver coin, the note being a promissary document to pay equivalent amount in bullion ... and some banknotes still say things like 'the bank of x promises to pay the bearer the sum of ... '.
These are integral parts of the whole system in regulating and pricing the money supply! The article only seemed to have considered things that affect "money" as people would normally handle in the day to day running of our financial affairs; but still they chose to include inter-bank transfers, the armoured car, and the like.
Pre-1900 there is the invention of paper money itself
science is a specialised type of philosophy, with strict rules about evidence and proof/disproof. newton after all, was a 'natural philosopher'.
Doesn't the strong anthropological theory take care of that? For example, let's assume there are a multitude of Universes (the Multiverse) with all possible values of each variable -- perhaps even with entirely different physics.
... ).
We see *this* Universe simply because we can't exist in any of the others. Intelligent life observes the Universe in which it is possible to have life present simply because it is the only Universe in which it possible to do so.
If you have an infinity of Universes there is a certainty of 1.0 this occurring (but also as Professor Davies has pointed out, it also means an almost 1.0 probability that we're all actually in a simulation, but anyway
Some of those points in that 'Design evidences in the Cosmos' also strike me as misleading or inaccurate. For example, atmospheric CO2 levels. They have fluctuated wildly in the past without 'runaway' greenhouse effects. Geologically, the permanent ice-caps are *new*.
But to parallel the anthropological argument; the geological situation in which we find our civilisation able to develop to this point is very unique. We have had a recent, 10,000 year climate and geology window in which to get this far, without whcih it is debatable whether we would have developed large settled cities in which a scientific specialisation has developed. But aside from philosophical questions as to why you and I and not Urr-Ugghh the Mesopotamian pre-agricultural caveman are around to witness this against-all-odds wonder, we observe this state simply because, without this slender state existing, no one would be here to witness this fact.
Eventually some volcano will suddenly collapse into the sea or a big asteriod will hit us, or the icecaps will melt (or double in size) or a nearby star will go super nova or our solar system's galatic orbit will traverse the galatic plane, or some tother disaster we haven't forseen will smack us back to where we came from and there will be no-one left with the time (or just, no-one left) to ponder at the poverty of existence. Nature is brutal and random. Just thank your dumb blind luck that you will probably die before you get to witness such a thing happen.
i mean, where slowing drivers down is a priority (like, near a school), as opposed to other places where it's easy to find people speeding, but not so near critical places... like nice bits of speed limited bypass.
but you won't find me defending people who get caught speeding anywhere.
There's an ad running on NSW television currently that shows a two cars, one at 60km/h and one at 65km/h, brake at same time, but faster car hits obstruction at nearly 30km/h whereas slower car hits obtruction at 5 km/h. it says 50% of car speed is lost in the last 5 metres, so that 5km/h difference when brake is applied makes a 30km/h difference at collision point. in other words, the 5km/h -- which most people would say is a piddling amount not worthy of argument over -- can easily be the difference between life and death.
plenty of speed cameras in Sydney, and they usually stick 'em where they'll generate revenues and not where they might be needed. Doesn't stop people speeding though.
i was about to say the exact same thing. 60 mph in a suburban street is still dangerous enough.
Yep, I used to work at a company that insisted anyone turning in timesheet data that showed over 45 hours in a week had to explain themselves. Wearing people out with long hours does not result in good quality work.
What the mgmt needed to say to the client was the following;
Please pick any TWO of the following;
- On Time
- On Budget
- Good Quality
But being suckarse mgmt, they didn't know how to tell a client this. In the end, as well as screwing and pissing off their workers, they are doing a disservice to the client because they client won't get what they want anyway.
no, it would be 'buggers'. still the all-purpose aussie vernacular swear word that can range from very friendly to fairly hostile.
Second Bruce: G'day, Bruce!
... Rule Six. Rule Seven,
First Bruce: Oh, Hello Bruce!
Third Bruce: How are you Bruce?
First Bruce: A bit crook, Bruce.
Second Bruce: Where's Bruce?
First Bruce: He's not 'ere, Bruce.
Third Bruce: Blimey, it's hot in here, Bruce.
First Bruce: Hot enough to boil a monkey's bum!
Second Bruce: That's a strange expression, Bruce.
First Bruce: Well Bruce, I heard the Prime Minister use it. "It's hot enough to boil a monkey's bum in here, your Majesty," he said and she smiled quietly to herself.
Third Bruce: She's a good Sheila Bruce, and not at all stuck up.
Second Bruce: Here! Here's the boss-fellow now! - how are you bruce? (Enter fourth Bruce with English person, Michael)
Fourth Bruce: 'Ow are you, Bruce?
First Bruce: G'day Bruce!
Fourth Bruce: Bruce.
Second Bruce: Hello Bruce.
Fourth Bruce: Bruce.
Third Bruce: How are you, Bruce?
Fourth Bruce: G'day Bruce.
Fourth Bruce: Gentleman, I'd like to introduce man from Pommeyland who is joinin' us this year in the philosophy department at the University of Woolloomooloo.
Everybruce: G'day!
Michael: Hello.
Fourth Bruce: Michael Baldwin, Bruce. Michael Baldwin, Bruce. Michael Baldwin, Bruce.
First Bruce: Is your name not Bruce?
Michael: No, it's Michael.
Second Bruce: That's going to cause a little confusion.
Third Bruce: Mind if we call you "Bruce" to keep it clear?
Fourth Bruce: Gentlemen, I think we better start the faculty meeting. Before we start, though, I'd like to ask the padre for a prayer.
First Bruce: Oh Lord, we beseech Thee, Amen!!
Everybruce: Amen!
Fourth Bruce: Crack tubes! (Sound of cans opening) Now I call upon Bruce to officially welcome Mr. Baldwin to the philosophy faculty.
Second Bruce: I'd like to welcome the pommy bastard to God's own Earth, and remind him that we don't like stuck-up sticky-beaks here.
Everybruce: Hear, hear! Well spoken, Bruce!
Fourth Bruce: Bruce here teaches classical philosophy, Bruce there teaches Haegelian philosophy, and Bruce here teaches logical positivism. And is also in charge of the sheep dip.
Third Bruce: What's New-Bruce going to teach?
Fourth Bruce: New-Bruce will be teaching political science, Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett, and Benaud.
Second Bruce: Those are all cricketers!
Fourth Bruce: Aww, spit!
Third Bruce: Hails of derisive laughter, Bruce!
Everybruce: Australia, Australia, Australia, Australia, we love you amen!
Fourth Bruce:Bruce: Crack tube! (Sound of cans opening) Any questions?
Second Bruce: New-Bruce, are you a Poofter?
Fourth Bruce: Are you a Poofter?
Michael: No!
Fourth Bruce: No. Right, I just want to remind you of the faculty rules: Rule One!
Everybruce: No Poofters!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way at all -- if there's anybody watching. Rule Three?
Everybruce: No Poofters!!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Four, now this term, I don't want to catch anybody not drinking. Rule Five,
Everybruce: No Poofters!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Six, there is NO
Everybruce: No Poofters!!
Fourth Bruce: Right, that concludes the readin' of the rules, Bruce.
First Bruce: This here's the wattle, the emblem of our land. You can stick it in a bottle, you can hold it in your hand.
Everybruce: Amen!
(NB: The Album versions continue with the Philosopher's song The TV version continues below....)
First Bruce: Right, let's get some Sheilas.
(An Aborigine bunts in with an enormous tray full of enormous steaks.)
Fourth Bruce: OK.
Second Bruce: Ah, elevenses.
Third Bruce: This should tide us over 'til lunchtime.
Second Bruce: Reckon so, Bruce.
First Bruce: Sydney Nolan! What's that! (points)
(Cut to dramatic close-up of Fourth Bruce's ear. Hold close-up. The superimposed arrow pointing t
Is that the bit where you use your Athlon-based supercomputer to calculate the effects of global warming but you have to include the effects of running your simulation? So can we simulate the climate effects of our own climate simulation? Does this needs to go into recursion? Can the simulation simulate itself? And will this question be answered in the Matrix Revolutions?
yes but doing so took it out of the direct line of the business logic and put it into a factory where it should be.
Isn't the Full & Correct name;
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ???
"Great Britain" being the takeover (union) of the English Crown by the Scottish Crown by King James the Sixt and First after Elizabeth died?
Hobart airport is not an international airport.
And mail probably already does go to a single port of entry, using the most common port of entry for nearly everything that comes into Australia -- Kingsford Smith Airport, Mascot (Sydney). Or Port Melbourne or Botany Bay for surface mail. And it's much more efficient for Australia Post to work out how to get the letter to it's ultimate destination from there, than for the USPS to try and work out the best airport to use to get a letter to Wagga Wagga, NSW.
Let's think about the reverse, a letter that goes from Sydney NSW AU, to Punksatawney PA USA. Should Australia Post route that to some US port close to Pennslyvania? Or send it where they send every other bit of mail that goes to the USA -- somewhere in California I would guess, and then let the USPS figure out how to get it from LA to Pennslyvania?
Oh right, so because postcodes are variant lengths (which they already are), such a scheme whereby the country code is appended to the code to make a post code that is truly 'universally unique', is useless, whereas a scheme that completely replaces the full human readable address, with nearly unmemorisable number, is preferable. Despite the fact that no paper form on earth (let alone the databases this stuff is scanned into) will cope with it.
To me, this is just as stupid as Swatch's "internet time". It is just taking a paradigm that most humans are already conversant with and replacing them with a mixture of identical (but slightly rejigged) concepts and completely alien ones, to serve a benefit to a practical purpose that is marginal, at best. In the end, the best and most likely only concept it benefits is probably the patent holder's licencing fees.
Last of all, the scheme I outlined is already in use. Simply put one already fills in the full name or accepted abbreviation of the country of destination anyway.
This is just poor design;
// uk specific rules here
// usa specific rules here
... etc ...
// construct valid post code object here
// present error to user ...
if (country == US)
ValidateZip
else if (country == Canada)
ValidatePostalCode
else if (country == UK)
etc...
Here's an alternative (translate to your own favourite language is left as an exercise for the reader);
interface PostCode {
public boolean validate(String postCode);
}
class PostCodeUK implements PostCode {
public boolean validate(String postCode) {
}
}
class PostCodeUSA implements PostCode {
public boolean validate(String postCode) {
}
}
/*
*
*/
class PostCodeFactory {
static public PostCode getPostCode(Locale locale) {
}
}
// business logic;
String somecode;
Letter letter;
Country destination;
PostCode destPostCode = PostCodeFactory.getPostCode(destination.locale);
if (destPostCode.validate(someCode)) {
destPostCode.setPostCode(someCode);
sendLetter(letter, destPostCode);
} else {
}
// continue
That's just off the top of my head and I can see a million improvements to that code already.
I don't see what the problem is with putting the country and the post code is. After all the sending country doesn't care where postcode 'Potts Point NSW 2011 Australia' is they just need to send it to Australia. After it gets here then the Australia Post service can worry about where '2011' is.
In this proposed scheme they'd have to examine the code to find out what country to send it to in the first place. If they want "universal" code why not just pre- or post- pend the two letter country code on the code. So it becomes AU-2011. or US-90211. That's universal, and unique. And simple and HUMAN READABLE. If you don't care about human readability let's just allocate every address a unique barcode.
Not just build or buy and equip with aircraft. Operating the damn thing is the biggest cost. Many of those aircraft carriers that you see in the 'order of battle' (fleet lists) of third and second world nations simply hardly ever put to sea. And if you can't put to sea very often, your crew isn't very well trained ... and then you've not got a very effective weapon.
Me, I want a gas turbine powered frigate, not a aircraft carrier.
In Australia, certainly, no-one can stop you from taking any job you want. Bonded labour is not legal, full stop. I sign these agreements, they are not enforceable anyway.
I am not a laywer and this is not legal advice.
i served on a ship in missile fire control radar. on the wall in the section where i worked there was a notice, which described in the event of imminent capture or scuttle, the order of components to destroy in decending order of preference (starting with frequency generating cyrstals and tubes), and what to use. which started with explosives, down through firearms, onto axes and sledgehammers, and even the maintenance tools if nothing else was available.
Votes. Nearly everyone lives in a house of some form after all. Especially people on the urban fringe "swinging voter" electorates. And all the nasty shitheads who think owning only a Nissan Patrol and not a Range Rover means they're a "battler", whereas an unemployed IT worker or some weirdos who collect old computers are just "bludgers" looking for a "handout" (as opposed to a "subsidy" which all aspiring Range Rover battlers should be entitled to - this is what is termed Howard's "aspirational politics" - aspire to a bigger handout than people less well off than yourself, the richer you get the bigger the handout). Sorry to be so blunt about it. Our government, and the attitude of the people it engenders, is appalling. IMO.
Sure it would be nice, but not realistic. This is the same government that slashed and burnt all the research funding remember. It's already spent all its available budget surplus keeping itself in power.
you are talking about the australian government here. they are profligate with the porkbarrelling but if it involves anything that is NOT from IN or ON the ground, i.e. if you can't plant it, grow it or dig it up, they wouldn't have a clue how to best to support it, nor be inclined. 'computers - thems fer intelectuals hur hur hur' says the prime minister.
No no I meant Sun Microcomputer. We drop one of these probes onto McNeely's brain.
Estimated temperature earth's inner core = 7300K.
Temperature at Sun's surface (photosphere) = 5800K.
Temperature of Sun's 'atmosphere' (corona) is about 1 to 2 million degrees Kelvin.
Temp. at SUN's core = 8 to 10 millions of degrees Kelvin.