Replying to undo an unfortunate misclick resulting in a "Flamebait" moderation instead of "Funny".
It's actually about half that. Because that garbage is no longer going to be dumped at a cost of $30 per ton, they're saving themselves that $30 in addition to making $26. So eight years to pay for itself, but your comments on the longevity of the bins still stands.
There may be more than two choices but one of those two will be Prime Minister, regardless how often you may repeat the simplification that there are other options. Spoken as someone who is leaning Green in the Senate as the only one with sane policies outside the environmental policy area.
It's the usual "DNA testing helped us catch this serial killer. Obviously this means it's all safe and dandy and no privacy worries here!" article that gets wheeled out about once every couple of months, just in case someone was starting to have concerned thoughts about all that identifying material being available to the government and its underlings.
I'm rather sceptical about these articles these days because they do seem to appear so regularly to remind us all how lucky we are. Keep an eye out and you'll see what I mean.
I do use iTunes and the level of reviews are generally so crap as to be useless anyway. They tend to either be "this crashed on me once, 1 star" or "AWESOME!!! 5 stars!". That's not even mentioning the frequent "I don't want to buy this app because it looks crap, 1 star" reviews that seem to pop up and aim to be even more useless.
Wow there's a lot of knee-jerk reactions, especially those saying it shouldn't be taught as science as well as those from Australians saying "of course it's in Queensland".
However if you've actually read the article you'd know creationism is going to be "offered for discussion in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies"." The History Teachers' Association say the curriculum asked students to develop their historical skills in an "investigation of a controversial issue" such as "human origins (eg, Darwin's theory of evolution and its critics").
So in other words, it's not going to be taught as science. It's going to be covered as a controversy, under history (which is the closest thing to general social studies these days). IMO this would be the correct way to cover this kind of discussion and the kneejerk reactions based off the title and the summary are just that.
Of course I'm posting this too late and at too low a mod-level for anyone to actually see this explanation unfortunately.
All they are saying is that "if it gets popular, we may support it". So... they're basically saying nothing but the obvious, given it's in their interests to support popular formats anyway.
Probably not as graphic, but the better the steaks the rarer it should be.
I'm not a fan of rare meat so I don't abide by it myself but the longer a steak is cooked the more juices are boiled off, and most of a steak's flavour is in those juices. But whenever I have the opportunity to have a top-notch steak, medium-rare is my preference. If only I could bring myself to order it rare... People who order it well-done might as well order sausages for all the flavour they're getting.
In Australia we have providers of "roadside assistance", which for an annual fee you can ring to come and either fix or organize towing of your car if it breaks down, gets a flat battery, or even lock your keys in the car. It's a pretty common service that almost everyone has because of the long distances and low amounts of traffic on some of our roads, for example.
Fitting in with your analogy, I have a friend who recently got threatened with a refusal to renew his roadside assistance for the coming year unless he got his car serviced because he'd had four call outs in a year so it definitely makes sense for that scenario to be the case both automatively and in healthcare.
On the friend, all four call outs were for locking his keys in his car so the company providing the roadside assistance withdrew the ultimatum in the end since it didn't make sense...
Paraphrased from his own words:
"Stopping child pornography is extremely important to me and the Liberal party and therefore, if we can prove the censorship plan doesn't work, we will oppose it; but only it. We will continue to seek effective means to block 'filth' (his word) from entering our country any way we can. If the filter works, we will support it."
Basically the message I got from his reply is that Tony Abbot believes that the filter will work "well enough" and is too much of a hot potato to oppose politically.
I was inclined to agree until Tony Abbott rolled Malcolm Turnbull. There's no way Abbott would be saying no to an internet filter given his love for all things Catholic and his inability to separate that with his day-to-day job. Kate Lundy is the person to back now - campaigning for making it opt out (not ideal but more sane than no option) from within the Labor Party.
And to paraphrase a Chinese-Malaysian friend of mine who immigrated to Australia as a young child and is in the UK at the moment, "I have to catch myself every time someone calls me Oriental and realise that they're not being racist."
Oriental is a racial slur here. East Asians are "Asians". Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are "South Asian" if the speaker is being technically correct, or "Indian" if they're not concerned (which is racist to my mind, but that's because a Pakistani friend of mine pointed out that calling him Indian is like calling an Israeli a Palestinian).
Brew the sugar into rum... Potatoes into vodka.
And when you get sunburnt, the smell of sizzling bacon is just a delicious bonus!
I honestly don't get why third parties would be getting involved in it. Sure, the privacy settings might not be to everyone's wishes but third parties complaining to the government to get them to interfere is just layering stupidity on top of stupidity.