The degree of leftist bitterness at the collapse of all their hopes of an Allied defeat in Iraq never ceases to amaze.

and feel free to tell me where the “grace and politeness” lies in that one. I wasn’t hoping for an Allied defeat in Iraq, and neither were most of the millions of people who marched against the war. When idiots like Integer Tone quit with the accusations of treason, and fools like Markl quit with lines like “the anti-Bush lancet propaganda” we can talk ad hominem. Nothing else will be forthcoming until the chief losers of this war – the neo-con scum and their useful idiot Decents – admit that they screwed the pooch, and killed a million Iraqis while they were doing it.

Which, incidentally, wasn’t particularly graceful or polite either. Let’s not forget that.

Just an opinion of course.

Well good for you!

I withdraw my “wingnuts”

Does that make it acceptable?

Paul Burns (26). Just like Eve, it was probably all Maid Marion’s fault: “she made me do it!”

Watch out for her – she’s pretty smart and articulate.

Peter Wood (33). Man cannot live by MEF (Manna-Enriched Food) alone.

Heh.

Go the Crows!

That has pretty much summed up my weekend so far.

They were trying to spruik the benefits of digital radio on the ABC the other moring, and it sounds very ordinary. The ability to rewind and limited text/picture facility seemed about it. Nothing to get excited about.

Also, I don’t know what you mean about Australia getting its act together. Relative to 1990 levels, our conditional target is more aggressive than the target the US is currently proposing – and that hasn’t even made its way through the US senate yet. Quite separate from the trade argument our strategic relationship with the US makes it almost impossible to believe that the US would form some sort of climate alliance with Europe to threaten some of its most important allies!

Also, I have to take you up on the economy coming to grief. Projections of the impact of climate change on the economy are made relative to the expected baseline level of GDP at some point in the horizon. So, for example, if one estimated that the impact would amount to 20% of GDP in 2100, that would be relative to baseline in 2100. That baseline level would be more than double what it is now, so even a 20% reduction would leave us considerably better off than today. Note also, that the 20% doesn’t come all in one hit (GDP doesn’t collapse by 20% in one year) it is an incremental effect – we basically grow more slowly than we otherwise would. I’m not saying that the costs of action are greater than the costs of action – just pointing out how the economic impacts are supposed to be interpreted. Of course, if one believes that climate change will be associated with more regular “shocks”, then those will have large impacts in single years – but that is a different issue again.

IP radio is quite revolutionary on the other hand and its potential, BTW, to scare the shit out of MSM broadcasters just as bloggers and net journalism scare the shit out of media moguls – check out News Ltd’s Harto’s speech to the press club (as per the discussion in the “Hartigan punches back” thread).

IP radio – transmission of music and voice via Internet Protocol – is simply web radio using a personal computer to download a live “broadcast” and that’s it. But as Joe2 has correctly observed, there are now available standalone “radio” receivers, usually about the size of an old-style mantel radio, that will do the same job as a personal computer. Mine is a Sagem brand and it also has an standard radio FM tuner inside, though no AM.

An IP radio works the same way a computer works when we go to a website that has a “listen live” facility.

This is a very subversive bit of kit and I am not surprised that it is being downplayed because it has the potential to eventually murder MSM radio. Like blogging and websites, the concept demolishes barriers to entry for any putative broadcaster, as no broadcasting licence is required! All one needs is a home computer and a website. Plus a cheap microphone.

IP radio receivers pick up the “listen live” streaming via the wireless network (LAN) in the home or even via hard wire fif there is no wireless LAN – all IP radio units also have USB female plugs to take a Cat 5 LAN cable or USB patch cord direct from a router.

Of course, you can still listen to any IP radio streaming broadcasts on a laptop/PC via headphones or the computer’s loudspeaker. Quite a few people I know listen to IP radio at work on the boss’s computer at the their workstations.

The standalone IP radio receivers, which are easily available from retialers for $70 to $200 have a self-tuning facility set up to scan the world’s IP broadcasters and you can put in presets so it is just a touch of a button and you are listening to say KJAZZ from Long Beach Ca or Jazz88 from New Jersey or a station in Sengal if that is what you want to hear. The ABC broadcasts live via IP and if you are interstate and want to tune to your local station wehile away, you can. Neat technology.

Doesn’t Kevin Rudd have enough to do ?

As I have commented elsewhere on LP, Rudd’s ambition is to become God or at least a god. Consequently he has to be everywhere, be in control of everything, know everything and solve everything.

He’s just getting warmed up…

I think you are confusing “did” with “do”, since what it means is that poor people get to stay poor and rich people get to stay rich, and rich people still get to belch out as much pollution as they did in 1990 (plus 10% for recalictrants that are lucky enough to live in certain geographical regions, and probably even moreso in reality).

My bet is that poor people will quite happily bet against your suggestion by polluting more (but still less than rich people) their way to prosperity (unless really cheap non-polluting energy technology gets going sooner rather than later). For them, it’s a damned if you don’t (stay poor and suffer the consequences) and possibly damned if you do argument (environment gets destroyed too much), so they may as well take the risk and hope the environment doesn’t get stuffed up too much. Thus the Chinese strategy makes complete sense to the CHinese (it’s the best bet on offer to them), and if there are outcomes like Australia becomes 99% desert then Australians can hardly complain, since they’re just as responsible for it as everyone else (indeed, moreso, if you consider individual contributions).

It was the 1990’s version of the landmines and boblets of Loas and Cambodia.

Pure barbarism.