Thanks Blondie
shepherdless
JoinedPosts by shepherdless
-
13
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 4-23-2017 WT Study (LEAD)
by blondie inblondie’s comments you will not hear at the april 23, 2017 wt study (february 2017) (leads).
excellent general website: www.jwfacts.com .
bible translations www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible .
-
-
-
3
Watchtower in Australia - Number of Corporations
by Onager incan anyone link me the thread where the number of watchtower companies in australia was compared to other religions?
my search-fu is weak this morning.
cheers!.
-
-
shepherdless
If you are just after names, you can try:
Try searching using "Jehovah", "Kingdom", and "Watchtower". Most will be state registered "business names", not ASIC companies, because charities are usually just state registered "incorporated associations", not federally registered Pty Ltd companies.
-
25
Solar power rip off! Aussie government destroyed free electricity. Scum!
by Witness 007 inso my friends have had free power for years thanks to solar panels and a great contract with power company.
they even get credits for having 20 panels on thier roof!
i put 18 solar panels on my roof cost $9900 dollars.
-
-
shepherdless
Hydro is the best, but there are no new locations with the right topography in Australia to build them. In fact, there aren't that many new places in the Western world left where they could be built. (Still a lot that could be built elsewhere.)
Battery farms might become more viable if the price continues to drop. That would be a game changer for both solar and wind energy. In Aust, there are already household battery storage units being sold to compliment solar units, but that says more about the exorbitant electricity prices from the grid, than whether batteries are economically viable. A more traditional alternative to battery storage would be something like the Dinorwig pumped storage scheme, but there are probably no suitable sites. Even without storage, solar is a part of the solution, and each state now has a significant proportion of its electricity from solar.
Personally, I think the long term answers are nuclear (reliable base load power), and biofuels (for transport). Both are obviously controversial.
-
25
Solar power rip off! Aussie government destroyed free electricity. Scum!
by Witness 007 inso my friends have had free power for years thanks to solar panels and a great contract with power company.
they even get credits for having 20 panels on thier roof!
i put 18 solar panels on my roof cost $9900 dollars.
-
-
shepherdless
I think it would be helpful to give some background.
Some years ago, various Australian state governments (there are 6 Australian states) offered substantial incentives to homeowners to install solar panels on their rooftops. The scheme varied from state to state, but generally it was along the lines that, there were subsidies for the instal, and a contract to sell excess electricity back to the grid at the same rate electricity companies sell power.
The scheme was far more successful than expected, to the point it became a problem. State governments responded in stages by first reducing then eliminating subsidies, and the buy back rate of electricity was reduced substantially.
There is no doubt that those who got in early got a good deal. Those deals are long gone. An offsetting factor is that the cost of such systems has fallen dramatically over time. The 18 panel system referred to by the OP is probably a 3.6kW system. I have recently received an ad from the people who installed mine, for a 6kW system for only A$3000. (I got a reasonable deal on a small system, but nothing like the deal some of the first people got.)
I suspect that the OP was caught in an intermediate stage where state govts were trying to reduce the subsidies. A few years ago, my state govt tried to do something underhand in that regard, but did not get away with it.
For me, a far bigger issue in Australia is why over a 20 year period, Australia went from having the cheapest electricity in the Western world to the most expensive. Some people blame privatization, but look at WA where the entire system is still 100% govt owned. The reason is complicated, but at its core is a major government failure.
-
16
I Await the Call
by compound complex inmy day's long and arduous journey winds down.. infinite night gracefully descends and takes me into her.
welcomed embrace.. i have no reason to fear the inevitable,.
that transition into a higher and.
-
-
shepherdless
This not normally my style, but I will give it a go:
Night may have fallen but tomorrow is a new day
What might I face next; who can say
Will my future be short or long; I do not know
What will I do? Where will I go?
I am bound to face trials and tragedies along the way
I might get knocked down, but I won't fade away
I am going to use my time; so much more to do and see
Whatever happens, my ethics and pride will always remain within me.
-
63
Evolution is a Fact #27 - Monkeys, Typewriters, Shakespeare, 747s etc.
by cofty inmost creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
-
-
shepherdless
Hooberus, thanks for the link. Now I see where you get your ideas from. You are quoting from an online textbook (must be over 1000 pages) by Professor Mark Ridley. It looks like a fantastic resource. Each chapter finishes with a summary, and a quiz, to see if you have understood.
You seem to have not understood the issue though. Your quote is from the "A-Z Browser" which is the definition section for all of the various terms used. You should read "Chapter 7: Natural Selection and Random Drift in Molecular Evolution". This is a long chapter dealing with the issue of what proportion of changes in proteins and DNA are due to "natural selection" vs "random drift". Here is a link to the summary page at the end of that chapter:
A more succinct summary would be, to quote Richard Dawkins:
"It is becoming increasingly clear that most molecular evolution is due to natural drift."
The important point is that, although the issue has been a matter of considerable debate in the scientific world, it does not in any way undermine the theory of evolution.
-
86
Susan Rice Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel?
by freemindfade inhttps://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel.
what can we make of this?
rice is on record being a racist and lying about benghazi, now this?
-
-
shepherdless
freemindfade - it is a potentially huge constitutional issue. If it could be proven that she used national security secrets for partisan politics it's a felony and she will go to prison.
Well, I suppose if the info was being used for partisan politics, that would be serious, although I wonder whether exposing a Russian spy in the Trump team (to take a hypothetical example) would be a legitimate matter to bring to the public. However, judging from the reports, she asked for the names after the election, so there wouldn't have been any point from a partisan political viewpoint, so doesn't seem to be a possible motive. What am I missing?
Further, if she was aware there may be a potential spy or traitor in the Trump team, as National Security Advisor, wouldn't it be her duty to find out who?
By the way, I don't watch any US tv news, so I can't comment on any of them, and don't want to be dragged into that discussion either.
-
86
Susan Rice Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel?
by freemindfade inhttps://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel.
what can we make of this?
rice is on record being a racist and lying about benghazi, now this?
-
-
shepherdless
Can someone please explain the relevance? (I am not a US citizen, and I don't follow all the news there.)
As far as I can make out:
- Susan Rice was the "National Security Adviser".
- She receives "raw intelligence reports" (apparently "dozens", according to the linked article) of conversations between one or more foreign governments and one or more US individuals, whose name is/are redacted from the reports.
- The US individuals(s) were not the target of the electronic eavesdropping; the foreign government(s) was/were.
- She requests the name(s) of the US individuals(s). (Reading between the lines, the US individuals(s) is/are members of the Trump team.)
- Her request happened after the election but before the inauguration. However, it related to earlier eavesdropping, going back to before Trump was the formal Republican nominee.
What has Susan Rice done wrong? It seems to me she has done exactly what a National Security Advisor should do, in this instance.
I am just asking. I haven't commented on other Trump threads, and I don't want to be part of any broader debate.
-
-
-
shepherdless
So a place where vegetables were lined up under a spotlight and drip fed, was turned into a place to grow cannabis.
That stuff probably would do as much damage to your mind as what was previously going on in that KH.
-
63
Evolution is a Fact #27 - Monkeys, Typewriters, Shakespeare, 747s etc.
by cofty inmost creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
-
-
shepherdless
I simpy explained how to have perfect selection in one generation, you had to pay the price of the elimination of the other 9,999 in that same generation (destroying your population) for the evolutionary scenario to work. Your example tried to have the benefit of perfect selection, without the price. There is a cost to selective replacement that must must be paid. In this case the cost in the real world would indeed be the lives of the other 9,999. I was simply showing that an evolutionists own "rosy example scenario" when adjusted for reality runs into trouble.
What? One mutant monkey wiped out the rest?
However, when compared with the evolutionists "human evolution" timescale (5 million years since common ancestor with chimps) a problem developes, since humans have a slow generation time. In fact with a 20 year generation time the standard model of "evolution" allows only 833 beneficial mutations to have accumulated.
5 million years divided by 20 = 250,000 generations
250,000 divided by 300 (standard model) = only 833 beneficial mutations. (most of which are a single nucleotide)
And actually the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of beneficial mutations are ELIMINATED early on by genetic drift. Most evolutionists are not generally aware of this.Couldn't multiple beneficial mutations be occurring at the same time?