ballzac
-
Content count
4,109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by ballzac
-
-
"Another big difference is that a lot of the stuff is frozen and then thawed, which totally destroys it." right on! and why is this the case? i think it's due to the fact that they charge so bloody much for these things that they cant move it fast enough.
I think it's more that they don't buy locally, so it needs to be frozen for long term transportation.
it all points to greed and greed only. as i've said.
No shit, they're a business. What did you expect, philanthropy?
-
1
-
-
here is a VERY small example of the kind of fresh, thats always on offer from woolies ashgrove.
Pretty typical in my experience too. Although, I've discovered that shopping early in the morning tends to get you the best stuff. I think people pick the best stuff early on, and then they refill without chucking out the garbage that's left behind, and by the end of the day there's just a pile of crap to choose from. Another big difference is that a lot of the stuff is frozen and then thawed, which totally destroys it. There's a good place here where I try to buy a lot of my food, but they're pretty exxy. They're similar to what macro was like before they got taken over, but they're just a family business, and seem to have a fair bit of pride in what they sell.
-
I never have got the attitude of they will have to find a different job. What is wrong with there old one other than it is cheaper to get the customer to do it.
A job is an agreement between an employer and an employee. The employer requires a job to be done, and the employee requires money, so they enter into a contract to exchange money for services. If an individual or corporation does not require the services of a job-seeker, then yes, they will have to find another job. Neither an individual, nor a corporation, has a responsibility to manufacture unnecessary jobs so that kids can get work experience. If we want people with little work experience and no money to be given both those things without providing a service that is required by an employer, then it makes more sense to get this done by increasing unemployment benefits and improving the work for the dole system, than to arbitrarily expect certain corporations to employ people that they don't need.
So what's wrong with their old job? It doesn't exist! A job only exists if someone requires services. And if they don't, then you need to find a different job. It's unfortunate for a person who loses their job, but it's just a fact of life. You could make the same argument about all sorts of jobs that don't exist. What's wrong with being a switchboard operator or a level crossing attendant? Well, nothing...if someone requires that service. But you wouldn't expect telecommunications companies to reinstall the old fashioned switchboards just so that they can waste money employing people that they don't need.
-
1
-
-
Please spare me the ridiculous statements of extremity that you are fond of when trying to illustrate your opinions.
Following the consequences of opinions to their logical conclusion is probably the best method we have to find inconsistency in belief systems. Considering that we have no objective way of knowing which "oughts" are true, developing consistency in our worldviews is, to me, the most important thing. This is a huge part of the socratic method, which has been a staple in western philosophy for a couple of thousand years. A implies B, but you believe A and not B, therefore you are either wrong about A, B, or both. You may not agree with me on its importance, but I hardly think it's fair to call it ridiculous.
-
in a sense i agree w/you Ballzac, it's utopian to replace human labour w/machines, & in the case ov driverless cars it would also drastically reduce the road toll while speeding up traffic.
However in the case ov checkouts i don't think it applies.
the self service checkouts don't speed up the transaction in any meaningful way, they just replace a person w/you doing the scanning.
& seeing as how many checkout operators are at school or students working evenings or weekends, hardly anyone is being saved from a life ov drudgery so they can do something more fulfilling w/their life.
Very good point. I hadn't thought of it like that. Still, money is being saved by the business, and if people don't feel that there is sufficient competition for those savings to be passed on to the consumer, then it's that aspect that should be addressed in my opinion.
I personally like them. No need to make small talk with them, and the queues have reduced significantly. If people don't like them, there is still the option to use one of the manned checkouts.
-
Ballzac...
Sorry, my comments were only relevant to your point about checkout machines. The local versus global economy and minimum wage versus economic libertarianism is another aspect altogether, which I wasn't intending to contradict you on.
If youre a checkout person, well bad luck, your job is in danger. You won't be kept on to polish apples in the produce section, it'l be a boot in the bum and out the door.
I'm sorry for people who lose their jobs under these circumstances, but tough luck I'm afraid. Cyclones are very good for builders and glaziers and many other people in the construction industry, as well as in health-care and various other industries. If there are a lot of cyclones in one area over several decades, there will be a lot of jobs in those sectors in that area. Real people are at risk of losing their jobs if the cyclones stop. But...this does not mean that cyclones are good. This is essentially the reasoning you are using. While there may be some significant differences, the basic assumption that the existence of more jobs in a particular sector is a good thing, is simplistic.
You didn't address my point about the other technologies we have today, like computers and ATMs, that take the place of human jobs from decades ago. Do you see a difference? Or do you think that we should all become Amish and shun all labour saving machines? If you see a difference, then what exactly is it? Progress is not a bad thing. When AI driven cars are commonplace and taxis are replaced with computer driven taxis, there will be complaints that taxi drivers are losing their jobs. When soldiers are replaced by robots, there will be a backlash because soldiers are losing their jobs. No different to the complaints about lost jobs when ATMs came in, or your complaint that check-out people are losing their jobs. But it's all progress. I'm not saying that replacing human workers with machines will have a direct and immediate positive effect, but if we allow these changes as technology improves, there is a reasonable level of hope that we may one day see a world where human's work fewer hours for higher pay. If we do not accept labour-saving technology, then we are condemned forever to a world where labour is a fact of life.
-
I'm with you on the quality, ghostly, but in my experience, the small stores, whether it's a small-town general store or a medium sized, family owned store in a large city, are significantly more expensive than the supermarkets.
-
1
-
-
On the self-service machines, they are disgusting. Along with many low level office jobs going to Indian contracted companies, non-fixable, disposable appliances and local manufacturing on it's death bed, these checkouts are another nail in the coffin that will drive this country into the worst Depression imaginable in our lifetime.
That's "cyclones are good for the economy" reasoning. I don't see why we should have a problem with using machines for menial tasks and free up human resources for more demanding tasks. Real economic growth comes from work being done, and the more machines are doing the simple tasks, the more work will get done over all.
If we follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, we should be getting rid of ATMs and employing a lot more bank tellers, banning cars and employing rickshaw pullers, employing teams of human computers for numerical calculations in meteorology and other computational sciences, etc. Then we can see if you're right and we end up with a booming economy, or if we turn into the most backward and poor country in the west.
-
3
-
-
It's interesting what you get when you google some of the names:
...the (Feminism in London) conference certainly blew wide-open the myth that all feminists ‘hate men’.
Indeed, as yesterday proved, many feminists ARE men.
But enough about my experience of the day. We are, after all, women’s views on news, so we asked the women delegates present what they thought…
“Feminism is commitment and it can be very disheartening. Events like today renew your energy in a difficult fight. I feel inspired. We need to keep up the fight together.” Alice Eden
“The main hall speakers were inspiring, interesting and very good at multi-tasking! Enjoyed the discussion on women’s place within public space and breaking down the barriers.” Gemma Price
“Great to meet others and exchange ideas on how to be a feminist worker, parent, partner, voter and activist in the modern world.” Michaela Hendriks
“How wonderful to be in a room of 1000 women who will admit to being feminists! So few of the people I meet are – or say they dislike the word” Christine
“The Director of Southall Black Sisters in my new hero! Also great to see the linking up of issues worldwide – like anti-militarism or anti-corporatism. This is so important.” Anna
“I am overwhelmed and emotional!” Lizzy Hyatt
“Always a day that reminds me I am one of many. I don’t have to stand alone.” Karol
“I mainly visited the informative and friendly stalls. I look forward to making new friends and forming new networks after today.” Dlivia
“Love it! This was badly needed, especially after the budget cuts. Let’s have a longer one next year. So much to hear and so little time.” Michelle
“A life-changing, consciousness-raising event empowering women everywhere.” Ashley Dodsworth
“Amazing, inspiring speakers. We need MORE WOMEN. MORE MORE MORE!” Het
“Was great hearing about women’s news from all over the world.” Holly
“My hope is that all the women here will be inspired to ACTION rather than just talking.” Laila Namdarkhan
http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/2010/10/wvon-meets-feminism-in-london/
So, what sort of action is this last person talking about? Well, let's see:
I'm not implying that all people who describe themselves as feminists hate men, nor that all the people at these mainstream feminist events hold these same views, but it's pretty clear that there are people who are at least fairly well well known as activists in the feminist community that are either accepted in spite of these views, or claim to be interested in equality while having a hidden agenda. I find it hard to believe that someone with these extreme views would be able to keep quiet when among other feminists, so I'm betting on the former. How many of these other women hold these views but happen not to participate in online discussion, or do so on a private forum that hasn't been exposed?
Many high profile feminists have contributed to the blog on the site that the private forum is run by, and I don't think it would be credible to think that they are ignorant of the beliefs held by the majority of their readers and the members of the site who post on the private forum. I'm sure when they get together at conferences or other meetings, there would be a lot of discussion of gendercide and the like, but I think the a lot of the high profile people probably know they have too much to lose if they post on the private forum and it is exposed as it was. And, considering the level of male-bashing allowed, I think it's fair to say that the majority of these views are endorsed by the owner of the site.
-
Well when you get down to it, almost anything is technically possible, but doesn't necessarily happen.
Yep, and they can make a whole story out of nothing by discussing what is 'possible' as long as there is already enough prejudice amongst their viewers for it to be taken even remotely seriously, or if there is enough ignorance that they can drum up that prejudice themselves.
It's possible that there is a colony of microscopic leprechauns orbiting the sun in an empty can of spam just beyond pluto.
-
3
-
-
it may well be that extremist views like this are having an impact on the psyche of young boys
I think it's unlikely. Views like this really are not the majority view. My issue with it is more that when these women become gender studies lecturers and domestic violence 'researchers', it is their lies and inflated statistics that become the accepted 'reality'. Gail Dines is another example of someone in a similar academic position who spreads falsehoods and her own anecdotes that seem to be in stark contrast with evidence and the reported experiences of sex workers. Her views may not be quite as misandric as some of those expressed in the screenshots above, but she has said some 'wonderful' things, like that the Duke Lacrosse players who were falsely accused of rape should take some of the blame. She calls all sex work "sex trafficking", and when people like her spread figures about how many "sex slaves" there are in western countries, those statements get repeated without anyone questioning whether she's talking about people who are forced into sex work, or people who have freely chosen it.
As I've stated before, there are many who call themselves feminists who are strongly opposed to such a black and white understanding of these issues, but these tend not to be the feminists who become lecturers in gender studies or other positions of authority. So I am not complaining about those people, and if they had a significant influence on public perception and policy, I would not have a problem with that either. I have a problem with the way these radical nutjobs are respected and their crap is believed so readily, and their manufactured statistics are reprinted in the media without question.
I don't really know if boys are doing worse at school than they used to, but girls are doing better than boys, and they are still getting more in the way of scholarships and assistance in most western countries, and this is because they are seen as an oppressed minority. In other words, if there aren't enough girls in high paying jobs for the liking of feminists, they assume that they are being discriminated against at every turn. The actual figures of how many girls are finishing high school with very high marks, but then choosing work that is easier and/or more fulfilling than finance or mining, are ignored, and then affirmative action is applied to improve the education of the girls, even though they're already doing better than the boys.
EDIT: I meant I think it's unlikely that they are having an widespread impact on the psyche of young boys. These individuals are almost definitely having a direct impact on the children in their 'care'.
-
That's nothing psylo. Check this one out:
I wonder where the poor kid heard the word "rape"
I'm sure it wasn't from the crazy feminist who is supposedly responsible for his wellbeing. Cos, you know, feminists never talk about rape, rape culture, rape enabling, rape, rape, rape, rape, patriarchy, rape, privilege, rape, rape, rape...The group who runs the website (it is private, hence why screenshots gathered from an MRA 'agent') had one of their events cancelled by the owners of the venue after these screenshots were sent to them. Their headline speaker was going to be Sheila Jeffreys, a professor of political science at the university of Melbourne. So when people compare criticising feminism to criticising Islam based on the extreme examples, I'll go out on a limb and say that until we have al Qaeda members being given high profile positions at government institutions in our society, and when we start getting our political propaganda, our teachings in ethics, etc. from fundamentalism muslims, or people closely inspired by their teachings, there is a big difference. People are so willing to believe the stuff that has been spread about gender, without checking the facts, and being unaware of the motivations behind a lot of the manufactured statistics, because...well...it's all about equality.
Along with the screenshot's, the profiles of most of the members were linked back to their facebook accounts. All of this information was made public. I'm not sure how I feel about these sort of tactics, but it's quite interesting nonetheless. Many of these women, as the ones above, are in a position of responsibility for the welfare of children, and it's terrifying. And to think, the parents are probably afraid to leave their kids alone with the male staff member for fear that he might be a paedophile, but they'd never guess that the woman they leave their little boy with wants to cut off his penis or throw him through a pane of glass.
-
Australian Men's Shed Association
The modern Men’s Shed is an updated version of the shed in the backyard that has long been a part of Australian culture. Men’s Sheds are springing up all around Australia. If you looked inside one you might see a number of men restoring furniture, perhaps restoring bicycles for a local school, maybe making Mynah bird traps or fixing lawn mowers or making a kids cubby house for Camp Quality to raffle. You might also see a few young men working with the older men learning new skills and maybe also learning something about life from the men they work with. You will see tea-bags, coffee cups and a comfortable area where men can sit and talk. You will probably also see an area where men can learn to cook for themselves or they can learn how to contact their families by computer.
http://www.mensshed.org/what-is-a-men's-shed/.aspx
From what I gather, these are groups for mostly older gentlemen, most probably retired and divorced or widowed. It gives them some human interaction that they might otherwise not have access to, and I think a big part of what they are for is to combat the high incidence of depression and suicide in men. In addition to this, the majority of stuff they work on is for charity, and the organisation is not for profit.
Or, if you don't like that perspective, you can look at it from the feminist angle (it starts to get really eye-opening at about post 7):
-
I think the discussion of ethics is valuable, but the personal attacks have to stop. I've removed phyllode's last post and folias' response, but I've left all the previous posts because I think there is value in the discussion that was happening.
But, the next person who makes a personal attack in this thread, however indirect, will receive a warn point, and if another member takes the bait and attacks back, they will also receive a warn point. Phyllode and folias, it is probably best if you do not even address each other in this thread as there is clearly a lot of aggression and it might be difficult to keep it civil. I will not enforce this, so if you are confident that you can discuss this without personal attacks, then feel free to do so. But I will use my discretion if I think that a post was inflammatory, and if you've failed to follow my advice and decide to address each other, you have to accept that you're risking a warn point.
-
We won't see any active support from Obama's administration. It would be hard for him to back out of some of the comments he's made about drug law reform in the past. But hopefully they will lay off for a bit.
-
This is quite incredible. It looks like the beginning of the end for the whole ridiculous WOD. Even if the federal government decides to crack down and cause problems for Colorado, I think this shows how the attitudes are changing in the states, and it's only a matter of time before laws like this get passed in other states, and I think the pressure for the federal government will get too high for them to keep resisting. Once America is on board, particularly given enough time to prove success, other countries will follow. I'm going to try not to get too excited about this particular event, because you never know what is going to happen in the near future, but I think it is a colossal step forward, looking at the big picture.
Regardless, it might be a while before any sort of infrastructure is set up to distribute it in a controlled way, but in the mean time, it will be pretty soon that people in Colorado will be able to possess cannabis without fear of arrest by state police, and if the federal government decide to intervene in some way, it will be a while before they get around to it, so there will be many people who have it easy over the coming months.
-
4
-
-
i understand a event horizon i think but how much is a solar mass i kind of under stand overcoming nuetron and electron degeneracy pressure but would just like
if you could point me in the right direction
I'm not sure I understand your question
-
Not exactly. The three products have to contain protons for it to be termed ternary. It's far from my area of expertise, but I think it would be fairly safe to assume that there's no causal reason for 3 charged fragments to be produced instead of two. The analysis would require looking at the wave function of the system, which would give a probability of ending up with three charged fragments. This would correspond exactly to the percentage of the resultant elements in a large ensemble of fission events. But there is probably no way of predicting, with any certainty, whether there will be two charged fragments or three from initial conditions in a single fission event. The probability of this occurring is would be higher for some initial conditions than for others. That is, some fissile materials will be more likely to result in ternary fission than others, but the exact probabilities would require an in depth analysis of the wave function.
-
1
-
-
Remind me not to piss off a security guard
-
2
-
-
Awesome specimen. That's a pretty lucky find at a Bunnings.
-
2
-
-
The public perception that violence by women against men is okay is profoundly ingrained.
In your world, in this case, the man is largely at fault because in spite of being drugged and bound, he should have gently held her by the wrists until she ran out of steam. The picture you have in your head of violent women seems to me to be like a period drama, where the demure, petite, corseted woman slaps the philandering man across the cheek. We're talking about real life here.
The statistics are pretty clear. Fifty percent of intimate partner violence is perpetrated by women. If the man has all the control in such a situation, then you would expect 0% of these cases to end in the death of the man. Yet 40% of intimate partner homicides are perpetrated by women. It's possible that the strength difference does account for this being 40% and not 50%, but it's pretty clear that women can be extremely brutal, and the fact that this figure is 40% and not 0% shows beyond any doubt that, for whatever reason, men are not able to defend themselves against violent female partners much more than women are against male partners.
-
2
-
-
D. Walk away. Or if you are cornered, hold her down till she runs out of steam and then walk away. Then never go near the psycho bitch ever again. Problem solved!
It sounds pretty simple, but the chances of being able to restrain a violent and enraged person (male or female) without one of you being hurt is not great. And abusive people do not "run out of steam". They will tell you what you want to hear so that you let them go, and then they'll come back at you ten times harder. Assuming "walk away" is not possible (which would be equally possible for a female victim if the circumstances permitted) following the above advice will land you in jail or land her with sole custody of the children. She'll have scratches on her body from where you've tried to grab her and missed, she'll have bruises on her hands from where she's hit you, bruises on her legs from where she's kicked you, and bruises on her wrists from where you've held her down. If the police arrive and you're still holding her down, they will testify to it in court. Photos of her bruises will be shown, and she'll tell the court how she was afraid for her life.
Your undertanding of a situation like this is very comical, and suggests to me that you've probably never been in a situation where you have to protect yourself from abuse. It's not as simple as you think.
You're right that never going near the person again is the ideal thing to do. This is true for female victims too. But the reality is that both men and women have a lot of reasons that they stay with abusive partners, and while we can educate people about their roles as victims and what they can do to avoid the situation, it's very simplistic to say that the victim should just leave. Men have some unique reasons for staying, including the fact that if they have children, they are often very afraid of leaving the children alone with an abusive mother. Taking the children with them is usually seen as kidnapping by the law.
More importantly though, just say it’s a female in the exact same position, does she even have the luxury of these multiple-choice questions? Or does she just have to take the violent act you described and hope it doesn’t last long and that she is still alive after?
Women have these options more than men do. A and B (and D) will basically land a man in jail, or lose him custody of his kids, because society says that women are victims and men are perpetrators. Those same options are a lot easier for a woman, because if he is injured, it will be seen as self defense. You are also ignoring the fact that weapons can be involved. If a man is hitting his partner, even if she is too feeble to fight back, she can grab a knife and stab him, or hit him over the head with a blunt object, and it will most likely be seen as self-defense, particularly if there is a recorded history of abuse. A man in that situation does not have that option, because if he uses a weapon against her, it will be seen as abuse regardless of who was hitting first, and any record the police have will probably have labelled him as the abuser too.
But seriously, how weak do you think women are? I'm not a big guy, and if I was in a serious violent fight with my girlfriend, I couldn't confidently say that I would win. As I said, your view of violence by a woman is very comical. It's not a simple matter of delicately grabbing her dainty wrists and nonchalantly restraining her until she gives up. Violent people are violent. They are dangerous to be around. If a person wants to cause you physical harm, it's not a safe situation to be in, regardless of their gender.
It’s got nothing to do with sexism or slavery or whatever. Its basic physics.
Abuse has nothing to do with physics. It's all about psychology.
-
2
-
-
Though, where I think your argument completely falls apart, is when it’s a male subjecting a female to any sort of unwanted ‘physical’ behaviour. Which is obviously way worse than a female subjecting a male to any unwanted physical abuse. Since men have evolved to be far stronger than women and in general, men are far more capable of protecting themselves from a violent act against females.
"Obvious", not to me. Physical abuse is wrong, period. The gender of the abuser does not make it better or worse. I've already asked similar questions to others in this thread, but this argument about strength is non-sensical. Let's make this concrete. Give me a specific set of instruction that you would give to a man who is being physically attacked by a woman. Let's say she is pummeling him in the face with closed fists.
Does he:
A. start hitting her back until she is so injured or scared that she stops trying to attack him.
B. grab her wrists and tie her up so she is incapacitated and he has an opportunity to call the police or escape to a safe place, with the children if they have any.
C. he needs to take no action because his manly might is such that he is impervious to the feeble attacks of a female
The above may sound like ludicrous suggestions designed for the purpose of rhetoric, but I use those examples because I honestly can't see what you think a male victim is going to do with his (supposedly) superior strength that will protect him without sending him to prison. I say "supposedly" because strength among the genders are gaussian curves with different means for each gender, but they overlap considerably in the middle, and there is no way you can know which partner is stronger just because you know their genders. So please, seriously, even if you think I'm being trite, humour me by explaining exactly what the man should do in such a situation. This is also ignoring the fact that most abusive women use weapons. They throw plates at their partners and threaten them with knives, or hit them with frying pans, and there is nothing a man can do in the moment to protect himself that will not end up giving her the ammunition to paint him as the abuser. I think you underestimate the strength, as well as the brutality, that many women are capable of.
I mean come on, that just seems kind of obvious to me. A good example would be if some bloke decides to call his girl a stupid slut or something similar, for whatever reason, then just say he copes a right hook in the mouth. Well, I personally think he deserved it, I kind of also actually think its cool when a chick stands up for herself like that, lol.
But, if this situation is turned around and the same bloke has that same female all up in his face, screaming at the top of her lungs, calling him everything under the sun, then he gives her the same right hook, well, that’s just weak as piss and a complete dogs act, imo.
I am quite open to the idea that it's never okay to hit a person because of something they've said. I am also open to the idea that there are some things a person could say to you to intentionally inflame you that could be 'deserving' of physical violence. But to mix and match these positions depending on the gender of the two people is sexism, pure and simple.
Anyway, that’s my take on it. To be honest I really can’t see how anyone could see it differently. Of course a man committing violence against a female is far worse than a female committing violence against man. Its just seems like common sense to me brother, imo.
Peace
It's common sense to a lot of people that it's okay to enslave black people but not white people. It doesn't make it right. Your view is the prevailing view of our society, but it is precisely the normalcy of this position that gives violent women the license to do whatever they want to a man without being held accountable, and gives men no means of protecting themselves.
-
Fair enough. I don't think there's much risk of it ending up in bitches and gripes, but I get your point.
Shady shoppers stealing millions using scanner tricks at Coles and Woolworths self-serve checkouts
in Chill Space
Posted
Snowfella, as I said, it's more about the transportation. It seems they don't freeze any more, if this article is anything to go by, but they still have long term storage, and a lot of the techniques to allow the products to survive long term make it little of a surprise that the produce does not behave, or taste, quite like fresh produce.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/what-they-do-to-food-20120608-201su.html