goodguy

In addition to being awesomely heat resistant, aerogel can also hold insane amounts of weight proportionate to the size of the aerogel being used, up to 4000 times, which shames regular air something fierce. To put it in totally nonsensical terms, if air had a party, while aerogel was busy getting hummers in the back, loser oxygen would be making sure everyone was using a coaster. That’s how much cooler aerogel is. Fuck you, oxygen.

BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA…
Right.  Removing, ya know, actual savings encouragements to pay for direct cash-moneys tax cuts kinda defeats your point Senor.

Heh.

“The point of the system, he explains, was to guarantee an automatic Soviet response to an American nuclear strike. Even if the US crippled the USSR with a surprise attack, the Soviets could still hit back. It wouldn’t matter if the US blew up the Kremlin, took out the defense ministry, severed the communications network, and killed everyone with stars on their shoulders. Ground-based sensors would detect that a devastating blow had been struck and a counterattack would be launched.”

Most intriguing of all - they didn’t tell anyone because it was actually designed to stop THEMSELVES from itchy trigger fingers.  If super-death-computer-of-death is going to nuke the US anyway, you can hold off for that extra second.

Oh yeah, it’s still there btw…

I’ve been trying to think through my take on this for a while now. 

It strikes me that the Government is trying to decide who will be the free-to-air broadcaster here.  Ummmm guys, the tenders are to the IRB - it’s their decision, not yours. 

Now in the world of corporatised, arms-length SOE’s, the political side of Government shouldn’t be getting involved here at all.  Where TVNZ or Maori TV require “shareholder funding” to back up their bid, they should have made an attempt through normal channels.  A coordinated Government investment process would have seen those jointly assessed, sure.  But wouldn’t the ultimate “arms-length, small Govt” move here have been to say “we’ll provide $5m in funding to whichever bid wins.  These are operationally independent TV stations who have both presented a strong enough case for supporting investment”? 

I’d have liked to have seen MTS coverage, with TV3/TVNZ getting the “big games” as well.  But it ain’t my call either - cause they’re not my “rights”.  They’re the IRB’s.

Well it’s certainly nice alliteration (20% by 2020) and I have a lot of time for that group.  And perhaps best, they have suggested we offer more (30%) as a negotiating chip if conditions are met that offset some of the potential for carbon leakage and unfair measurement given our major contributors:

• Competitors of our trade-exposed, emission-intensive industries are exposed to a price on
carbon;
• There is overwhelming participation by developed countries in taking responsibility
for 25 – 40% reductions in emissions by 2020 from a 1990 base;
• Major developing economies, including China and India, agree to significant reductions in
the growth of their emissions below BAU;
• The rules for forestry and soil carbon be amended to recognise:
− that equivalent replanting can occur for pre-1990 forests in locations other than the
site of the felled forest;
− that the carbon in trees does not immediately return to the atmosphere on felling;
− the potential for soil to sequester carbon.
• The factors used to estimate equivalence of climate change gases are reviewed to
recognise the differing breakdown rates for methane when compared with CO2 and other
gases.

There is still no cost-side modelling apparent though - being “what would it take to get us there”.  Obviously this is scenario driven but would be useful.  I also wonder if they’ve got gross and net mixed up?  Because I can’t see how a gross emissions reduction allows for purchasing units internationally to get us to the marginal cost?