GST for online shopping??

NEWS.COM Article


An enquiry panel has advised the government that it can force online stores to apply GST to sales.
The retail sector is overjoyed as they have somehow come to the conclusion that this is a major reason why online prices are cheaper and people prefer to shop online.  I ask, what kind of cheese cake chewing franchise CEO would come to such a ridiculous conclusion?  Do they really think that the difference between online and in store prices is on average 10%? What bum biscuits!!!


This LED GU10 light bulb is $5 delivered to your door from Ebay. The closest match to this from Bunning’s is $25 (or $10 on special sale).  So if we ad GST to the ebay price it is now $5.50.  Now I don't need to tell everyone why GST is not the problem to the retail industries woes.

If the retail industry wants to win back shoppers, then it is really simple. First they have to drop the ridiculous mark ups they have on their merchandise. People in America, England, France, etc pay significantly less than we do after accounting for the exchange rate and general cost of living. The second thing they need to do is force their suppliers to match the online price for goods.

Big companies have been telling us for years (since the 60's at least) that globalization and capitalist open markets are beneficial for everyone because they promote "Healthy" competition. Now they have "healthy" competition and are losing, they start whinging.   I say play by your own rules, if you can't compete then you are either not as good as the competition or you are charging too much. 

I would not be surprised to find that it costs more to extract GST from overseas online sales than the GST revenue itself. That is if it is even possible to tax an overseas company that has no office or presence in Australia for tax purposes.

The only thing online shopping has done, is allow us to short cut the very expensive (and greedy) middlemen in the Australian retail sector, We are now beginning to get merchandise at the same price everyone else around the world does.

I say, force GST onto everything online, the extra 50c per item will at least create more Australian jobs as the ATO will have to create a new department to manage online sales taxes.

It's not the GST that's the problem, Shaking my head at them with eys rolling this time...

Racial significance??

news.com.au article on mayor who wants to doze house.
So, we have a mayor who owns a heritage listed house, he wants to doze it and build a new one. Residents say they don't want the house dozed and after the first council rejection the house suffered some major fire damage.  Residence are also claiming that the mayor has told them that if he does not get council approval to doze,  he will sell it to a local Islamic group to be converted to prayer rooms.

I have to ask:

1. Why is that a bad thing? is he insinuating that Muslims are degrading and will have a similar impact to the residence as, say, a new bikie gang club house?

2. Why do the residence care if that is the case, do think the same also?

Maybe they should call his bluff and let him sell to either the council or the local group who want prayer rooms. If they don't like the game this mayor is playing then why let him get his way. I'd rather have a quite mosque living next door rather than a greedy mayor. 

  It will be interesting to find out if the mayor is using Muslims to blackmail his neighbours into not complaining or if the neighbours have invented the Islamic story to discredit the mayor. Either way it seems the world is full of arseholes with small closed up minds.

Like this:

cops shoot and aggressively arrest reckless teens.

Now why on earth does it matter what the race the teenagers are?  When I read the first article there was no mention of the teenagers race, creed or colour. My opinion on how they were treated has not changed since I have found out. If someone steals a car and drives on the foot path running over Innocent people then I think the police should be allowed to use whatever force they see fit to prevent further injuries.

Over the course of time the truth will come out, So why would there be "tensions" that need to be eased in the community. If tensions are rising and people feel the teens were miss treated because of there race, then that is not only jumping the gun (any teen in this situation should have been treated the same) but that the community getting up in arms would be guilty of the same racial discrimination they assume the police force of. 

If after an investigation it is discovered excessive force was knowingly used, then you could apply some pressure from the community to show your displeasure, until then the community is making assumptions and escalating the situation with no good cause other than their inability to accept the posability that these teens have through their actions brought these consequences on themselves.

I look forward to seeing some resolve on this issue from both sides, I seriously hope no one dies.

is this really news?

If this is what passes for news today we are really in a boring country:

http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/someone-give-this-girl-a-job-as-a-copywriter/story-e6frfmd9-1226325952734

I think news limited got so carried away with their character assassinations in the political world they didn't realise they were shooting down young girls.  All she did was cut and paste a comical ad in hopes it will help sell her car. But when Australia's largest news group contacted her and made it the nations most read ad she must have thought she hit the jackpot.

Now It would appear that not only was this little car more important than the new bills to exempt FWA from internal corruption investigations, but it was worth coming back to today so we can all point our finger at the young lady and laugh at her in a de-humanising way. C'mon news.com, give us real news, tells us about the Craig Thomson affair and why we have a parasitic government hell bent on F**king us over at all cost. We don't care about plagiarised car ads.

Having said all that if you just swapped the girls name for Julia Gillard's, then we'd all believe it. She would tell us anything to sell her crackpot policies just like a dodgy car.  The budget has had so many banana skins shoved in it to hide the whine that the only industry in Aus. left making money is the banana growers. 

Just like a used car sales team, half of the Australian manufacturers have had their odometers wound back to make them appear more valuable and just like being sold a dodgy warranty for your car the government have canned solar rebates leaving the solar manufacturers and installers high and dry just like they did with the botched up pink batts scheme.  Yes this government are a lot like used car salesmen,


Keep up the good work riping off the average Aussie!!


P.S  there's a cheap 4x4 going for sale if you are stronger than Chuck Norris ;)

Another self important w**ker!!

Reading this this morning:

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/uk-hacker-jailed-over-abortion-website/story-e6frfku0-1226326365200

So, Apparently this halfwit has proven to us all that there is step lower than ignorance. Usually ignorance is merely the lack of understanding or knowledge of a subject. However this bloke has shown us you can go farther than that and it is far worse than ignorance, it is an active choice to be ignorant in the face of the common sense and basic understanding. 

This man has made two fatal mistakes which prove to us he is a W**ker:

1. He laid claim to be apart of a renowned Internet group "Anonymous", mostly I think because he believes that means something (really all it means you think they are elitests and your a wannabe). After all they haven't actually hacked much yet. Most of the time they have been given access to private server information from a mole or spy or some disgruntled employee. Who, in the sane world, really believes a bunch of random Internet nobodies are better educated and resourced than the CIA, FBI, Interpol, Scotland yard, ETC.  Not likely.

2. He has somehow got into his head that he is morally superior. I say this simply because regardless of your view point on Abortion, who has the right to private information? Just because you disagree with a moral question like abortion does not give you the right to steal sensitive information. We do not always know why someone makes the decisions they do.

So to the elite anonymous wannabe. Pull your head in and use some basic intelligence to argue your point. Do not try to force other people to accept your views through illegal actions and childish claims.

Definately shaking my head.

Breaking news, after I posted the above this news report was published:

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/hacker-who-stole-10000-abortion-patients-details-jailed-for-nearly-three-years/story-e6frfkui-1226326599566

I would just like to say that In light of my earlier post, he must have read my blog and I take full credit for his realisation that it was wrong. :P

 He also must have realised that staking claimed to an underground group that is responsible for alleged criminal activity may not have been the smartest thing he has ever done. Especial when under arrest for gaining unlawful access to a private computer system.

Naplan shmaplan, more money please!

The latest Naplan results are in:

http://www.news.com.au/national/rich-childrer-perform-better-at-school/story-e6frfkvr-1226320881931


Naplan was introduced by the Labour government in 2008, It was supposed to make a schools academic performance available for parents. This would allow parents to compare and choose schools based on their success.

Well, I can't help but wonder why a government would spend money on tallying the results, writing reports and maintaining a website when simply putting that money back into the social system would alleviate some of the issues it tries to highlight.  Parents moving kids from poorer performing schools is not going to help things improve.   What it will do is reduce the amount of funding that a school  receives, thus making it harder for that school to do anything better.

I wonder if this government had anticipated that when the Naplan results were tallied that it would indicate that more funding was required for lower SES families.  At a time when the government is falling over itself trying to scrape together enough pennies so not to look like a half starved leper on pension day, their own handiwork comes back and presents with yet another public issue they cannot properly manage.

It was not that long ago that the government spent Billions on new buildings for schools that need more teachers, It gave schools that required a library a second Gym and it gave schools in need of aid funding more class rooms. I am glad this report has come out now, It shows me that flashy new buildings and interactive whiteboards make no difference to a child that needs an integration aide, or a teacher that wants more time, training and autonomy. 

I am struggling to find any good points to Naplan. It does not indicate which schools are better for a particular child, it only shows us a comparative slide on basic academics. It does not tell us which schools have teachers that are compassionate about things like special needs, sciences, music or arts. It does not tell us whether the principal is a witch who secretly hates children and is plotting to cook them all in an oven in her ginger bread house.

One thing it clearly and without debate does, is show us that money in families makes a difference to a child's academic success. It shows us that financially secure families do better.

I have been shaking my head since 2008, but now I feel justified...

Apple versus everyone else!!

There has been a few articles of late about the competition between apple and google/windows as Steve Jobs biographer opens his mouth to defend his former bosses alleged opinions.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/smartphones/jobs-wanted-to-declare-thermonuclear-war-on-android/comments-fn6vihic-1226320470956

Lets look at the smartphone timeline first:

1. In 2000 Ericsson released the first touchscreen smartphone which included a PDA.
2. In 2001 Microsoft released its the Windows based smart phone (also touch screen)
3. Every other maker of mobile phones released a smart phone of some description.
4. Then Apple released the Iphone in 2007 7 years later than Ericsson.

Now given these facts, lets not follow the insane argument put forward by these silly Apple employee's that every other smart phone is a rip off the Iphone. The Iphone is simply an evolution of all the other technologies wrapped up in a closed OS. This does not mean it is better, after all the ringworm parasite is also on an evolutionary journey.  All other phone companies around the world have been revolutionising and are evolving their products too. The argument that one is the original and somehow undeniably better than the rest is an extremely childish argument that should be left in the school yard. 

Now Onto the OS:

The facts:

1. Sybian OS released in 2000 on the Ericsson R380.
2. Googles Android OS was conceived in 2003 and bought by the google consortium in 2005.
3. Apples touchscreen OS was conceived in 2005 (arguably not a completely original concept) and released in 2007 with the Iphone.

Considering there were already many varieties of the icon based OS, I can't see how some people can make the claims that Apple was first? Maybe someone can post a link for me to read with more detalied info on the topic?



Also in another article I notice that there is some speculation as to the macs vulnerability to viruses. I thought it was common knowledge that the more popular a computer OS gets the more likely it will become a target for virus and malware writers?  It has been said that 60,000 Macs around the world have been infected with a Trojan virus.  Even if this number was doubled I don't fully understand why that is significant. Lets consider  that according to Apple analysts, over 15 Million macs were sold for the 2010/2011 financial year.  If only 60,000 got a virus then why is this news worthy.  That percentage would be a drop in the Ocean.

Having said that I don't want to fuel the seemingly silly Idea that macs are superior. Going pound for pound, the difference between a mac and Windows (I refuse to call them a PC because nearly all small computers are PC's) is about $300 for the Mac OS.  Now that all macs run on intel 0x86 processors the only component that can't be compared in an apples/apples comparison is the OS.  If you think the Mac OS is better then good on you, if you prefer windows then that's great.   But the weight, battery life, speed, ram, hdd, optical drive (or lack of one) will perform almost identically between similar models.

Shaking my head at the fan boi mentality that always seems to confuses marketing hype for actual facts.

Stephen Hawking on Big Bang

Well It has finally happened:

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/television/first-pictures-of-stephen-hawking-in-scenes-from-cbs-big-bang-theory/story-e6frfmyi-1226319282677

This man has finally realised his other great talent, Acting. If anyone can achieve perfection in two careers, Physicist and actor, then it is Stephen Hawking.  I can't imagine the director will ever call cut because Stephen's energy isn't right. I just can't see how a director would be unhappy with the way he entered the scene, said his lines or just sat in the background as an extra.  Nup, so long as the computer voice is programed correctly there is no way he can screw up a take. 

I do sometimes wonder if when he sees a video of himself, whether he considers changing the voice on his computer from something sounding mid 80's to something smoother like modern GPS recordings?  The only problem might be that it could be harder to understand:  "at the next paragraph, make reference to Einstein".

??
I have always admired Stephen Hawking, not only is he a brilliant physicist, philosopher and now actor, but he can also hold a job, has no problems pulling the Chic's, earns a bucket load of cash, holds the respect and awe of nearly the entire scientific community and all without the ability to batter an eyelid!

Not shaking my head at this one, just happy there are some entertaining things happening in world and that the news is not all doom and gloom today.

Legalising drugs in Australia

Another day and another social dilemma;

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/marijuana-use-fell-after-decriminalisation-in-wa-under-gallop-government/story-e6frfku0-1226317934748

It would appear that there is some debate as to whether the legalisation of cannabis will reduce or increase the rate of users.  It was a fairly uneventful article until I read this little line:




"Mr Lenton said the rise in cannabis usage figures between 2007 and 2010 could be explained by a statistical anomaly, after the telephone component of the survey was removed, increasing the number of positive responses."


The words "statistical anomaly" in most cases can be replaced with the sentence: "I am making an excuse because the evidence has proved I am wrong"

Give me a break people, Are they really trying to get me to believe that approx. 23% of WA marijuana users suddenly decided to stop smoking simply because it was now legal to grow your own? I mean nothing else changed, it would even have be easier to get hold of cheaper right?

Anyone with two or more synapse can see that the only change in the statistics was a dip after 3 years, this could have been caused by just about anything. To apply half arsed assumptions like they have to a phone based survey about potential drug addictions is ignorant at best. It could also be possible that during the survey of 2007 they just so happened to miss all the houses with occupants who smoke.

Now I don't claim to have the answers, but then that is why I feel superior to these guys that insist legalising drugs will reduce the number of people using. It's like arguing that if you made Coke free then people will stop drinking it.

Still shaking my head over this one.

google ad's misleading?? really?

All rightey then:  So this is the news, An Australian court has found Google guilty of misleading ads.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/court-finds-google-ads-were-deceptive/story-e6frfku0-1226317592742

The ACCC case is that there was an ad for "caresales" and when you click on it it takes you to the Honda website.  Now pardon me here, But I wonder how many people accidental brought a brand new Honda thinking they were at the caresales website?  If google are guilty of anything here I think it might be that they have allowed there advertises to cash in on the stupidity of the average ad clicker. 

Sometimes we need to be protected from false claims, Here I am thinking of weight loss pills and anti ageing cream, but to take google to court for something as blatant and benign as this is simply ludicrous. At least they are not telling us they can make us look like Vin diesel in 2 weeks or grow my penis another 4 inches with a new pill! 

C'mon ACCC, do something usefull and stop the ads that target the dying and emotionally unstable. If you believe those ads, after purchasing a pre-paid funeral your family won't have to worry about you dying :), Yep, it's going to be a pleasurable experience for everyone because the people you leave behind won't have to call a funeral director.

I think Google should be praised for their efforts in bringing us the best of the web, After all if it weren't for google you would't be able to diagnose yourself with cancer,  watch video's of cats attcking things to the sound of techno and their crowning achievment: Allowing you to inadvertantly purchase a Honda Civic...


One day people will take responsibilty for there own ad clicking actions.

I shake my head...

Why ambiguity of evidence?

Over the past few years I have been reading many news articles concerning our brave government, well they are brave, Only 28% of the population believe they can operate a toilet correctly let alone run the country. 

Most of the comments I read are along the lines of "can't wait for a federal election" and "time to kick this monster out" (referring to our highly regarded PM*). Every now and then we witness a pro Labor comment that usually insists they can't believe how un-educated the Australian people are for not supporting Labor, how without labor we would all be working in the mines on a third world wage.   This is were I shake my head little.

This leads me to realise that the Internet news reading world is made up of two sorts of people: The angry and fed up, who's repeating comments are about relieving Julia Gillard of her Job, and the idealistic Labor supporters who haven't quite realised that the horse they are flogging died the day the Carbon tax past Parliament and the people were denied there democratic voice. 

It's true we may not be able to govern the country based on news polls but there is a certain accuracy to them and they do give a rather good indication of the opinion most Australians have. When the polling shows a primary vote of 28% this tells us that little they do is supported by the people, yet they argue that  the polls are somehow insignificant or just a passing statistical anomaly. This is what I refer to as the ambiguity of evidence.  We don't like what we see so we will find ways to blur and confuse the facts until it no-longer has any legitimate meaning, then we can continue on our merry way.  

I tried this once in metal work. I was making a figure 8 for a letter box but I could not get the welds looking right. My work looked like it had been made by throwing molten bits of steel at a wall until one seemed to end up the right shape.  My teacher approached me and informed me that my work was inadequate. Contrary to the evidence (In this case a piece of steel barely resembling a figure 8) I told him it was meant to look how it did, it was a country rustic look I was going for and I thought that I had done well after hours of hard work. My teacher did not agree, he was smart enough not to confuse the evidence with an ambiguous reworking of the metal work goal (which thus undermines the current evidence of shonky craftmanship). 

I really wish the general population were just as smart when it came to politics. If the evidence doesn't support our opinion then we either need to change our opinion or wait for the evidence to be found incorrect. Until then, obscuring the meaning of said evidence to support our agenda is nothing short of showing we aren't smart enough or strong enough to deal with the facts.  Just like our friendly news article commentators who are fervently opposed to facts and still wish to flog that horse on the off chance it regains its footing (and comes back from the dead).



*Snigger snigger