octave

do you mean re ratings sample size?

Again turbo with the offensive personal attacks. Are you questioning my intelligence? I will leave others to judge that. I always try to keep my posts to challenging ideas, not name calling.

Percentage of Australians who believe the ABC provides a valuable service to the community: 84%1 Estimated reach of ABC services via radio, television and online: 71%2 Average number of users who visit ABC online each week: 6 million3 ABC Radio’s average five-city weekly metropolitan reach: 4.7 million4 ABC Television’s average five-city weekly metropolitan reach: 9.4 million5 ABC Television’s total weekly regional reach: 4.5 million6 Average national audience for weeknight 7pm News on ABC: 1.2 million7 498,900 active users of the ABC flagship app on average each month8 Average monthly reach of ABC news and current affairs websites: 2.3 million9 References Newspoll, ABC Appreciation Survey, June 2014, national random sample (n=1902) conducted by telephone, people aged 14 years and over. Newspoll, ABC Awareness and Usage Survey, June 2014, in combination with ratings data, people aged 18 years and over. Webtrends Data July 2013—June 2014 Nielsen and Gfk from S1 2014, five city metropolitan, people aged 10 years and over, 2013—2014 OzTAM Consolidated Data 2013—2014 Regional TAM Consolidated Data 2013—2014 OzTAM and Regional TAM Consolidated Data 2013—2014 Flurry Analytics Nielsen Online Ratings – Hybrid, Australia, people aged 2 and over. http://www.fabcnsw.org.au/fabc/about_abc.php It costs 12.2 cents per day per taxpayer, that is $44.53 per year, Gnu if you promise not to watch or listen to any ABC station or web page I will happily reimburse you $44.53

I think you will find most of my posts contain links to reputable sources, but seemingly you never actually read them, or if you do you never address them. You didn't answer my question, how much would you be willing to pay for an area forecast? Earlier you said the government should only concentrate on "national protection plus law and order." So you would you be happy to pay for all the other services you receive? Every road a toll road, why should non-car owners pay for roads they don't use? I would be happy to pay for access to the ABC (where else can you see in-depth documentaries). And according to the the survey the YOU quoted the 85% of the Australian population that say the ABC is a "valuable service to the community" would probably also be willing to chip in, then we wouldn't have to listen to the whining of the 15% who prefer reality programs and cooking shows. Another question (that I know you will not answer) - Do you think that if your taxes only paid for the services that you suggest - national protection and law and order and you paid for everything else out of your pocket, that you think you would be better off?

The survey showed 26 per cent of respondents selected "public broadcasting" from a list of 16 areas pulled from the news that could potentially be the target of cuts in next month's budget. What were the other 15 areas? I know you don't like bias so in the interest of balance perhaps you should also quote: The survey results are in spite of longstanding support for public broadcasting among Australians. In 2013, Newspoll found that 85 per cent believed the ABC provided a "valuable" service to the community, with more than half rating it "very valuable". The headline is somewhat of an overstatement "Consumers tell government to: Cut public broadcasters" but what it should really say is "when presented with a list 16 areas of expenditure public broadcasting comes in at no16", this does not necessarily equate a call to cut public broadcasting. I would be quite interested to see the full survey. Also 26% of how many? I understand the user pays argument and to some extent I am sympathetic to it, the problem is the many users pays advocates seem to only see the services their taxes pay for that they don't like. Gnu how much would you be willing to pay for an area forecast before your next flight?

So you shouldn't have to pay for it presumably because you don't watch or listen to it? If you don't watch or listen it, what is your evidence that it is biased? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/audits-exonerate-abc-over-bias-claims/story-e6frg996-1226852398864

http://airfactsjournal.com/2013/04/accentuate-the-positive/

re moon landings - not opinion, not just about what people saw but hard evidence. Here is a list of evidence from 3rd parties ie not NAS or the US government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings Not sure what would be in it for the USSR provide evidence of the moon landings and yet they do.

Yes, it would be "silly to believe something just because it was on tv" but then all of these events have corroborating evidence. I find it intriguing that the "conspiracy theorists" tend to apply a much less rigorous test to the conspiracy theories than they do to the actual events. Also, they tend to believe not just in one conspiracy but they seem to think everything is a conspiracy. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insights-into-the-personalities-conspiracy-theorists/

Although these measures don't ensure that this could never happen again, I don't see them as being totally as useless as some people seem to think for the following reasons. 1) this suicidal pilot did not seem to be up for overpowering the captain so perhaps they would not be up overpowering a cabin crew member attempting to open the cabin door. 2) in this case (as far as we know) we were not dealing with an ideological terrorist but a depressed suicidal person. We know that often suicidal people can be talked out of it, for example, lifeline or literally talking someone down from the edge of a cliff. I think it would be much better for a suicidal pilot to be in the cockpit with another person than alone. 3) Other benefits could be insurance against a pilot left alone (perhaps on a long haul flight) falling asleep. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2271293/How-plane-left-controls-mid-flight-pilot-fell-asleep-leaving-pilot-locked-cockpit.html In my opinion so far no one has presented an argument that the negatives of these new rules would outweigh the positives.

cabin crew are already trained to effectively evacuate an aircraft in adverse conditions, I don't see that it would be much of a stretch to be trained how to operate a flight deck door. There seems to be an impression that the reason for a cabin crew member being present on the flight deck when one pilot steps out is to fly the plane, I don't believe this is the intention of the new regs. I recently read an interview with an anonymous pilot who claimed that on some occasions he had stepped out of the flight deck on a long haul flight and returned to find the other crew member had nodded off. This seems to me to be a reasonable reason for this rule. In terms of the Germanwing incident, who knows what difference this rule would have made, but it seems to me that the copilot waited for until he was alone in the cockpit presumably because he did not want to have to physically overpower the captain. The question is would the presence of a cabin crew member that would need to be overpowered in order to prevent them from opening the door have made a difference? Who knows, but it certainly would not have made matters worse. I find it a little disturbing that in this conversation cabin crew seem to be characterized as being dumb bimbos, but these are the people who are supposed to be able to evacuate a burning plane.

accidentally and only for about 30 seconds posted in the wrong thread

Golden Plains Aviation at Lethbridge. Pioneer 300 and a Tecnam, excellent instructors. http://www.goldenplainsaviation.com.au/

I am quite a big user of facebook and I get precisely 0 emails. it is all in the privacy settings. :)

So what are the true figures for subsidies to the mining industry? Are you asserting that they are zero?

So are you saying that there are no mining subsidies whatsoever? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_Australia#Subsidies http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2371190/nsw-subsidies-to-mining-870m-over-6-years-poll/

Fuel excise is not the only assistance that the government provides to the mining and energy industries. This article relates only to state government support and does not include federal government support. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/cost-of-state-mining-and-energy-subsidies-revealed-20140623-3aoxr.html

Sorry for the thread drift but in the interests of accuracy The Abbott Iraq troops story was not from the ABC but was first printed in the Australian newspaper by associate editor John Lyons http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/tony-abbott-sought-military-advice-on-go-it-alone-invasion-of-iraq/story-fnpdbcmu-1227233174095 "Tony Abbott has denied claims he sought advice on sending troops to Iraq, saying the suggestion is “absolutely fanciful” and “absolutely false”. The Prime Minister said the government had no plans to put Australian troops on the ground in Iraq. Responding to questions about the claims, made in The Australian today, Abbott said he had spoken to the Chief of Defence who was as “mystified” about the allegations as he was. “I thought it was absolutely fanciful. I rang the chief defence minister… and it was as much of a mystery to him as it is to me,” Abbott said. “The story is false. It is false. It is fanciful, absolutely fanciful.” Abbott continued by saying The Australian made “no attempt” to contact the DCF and his own office to clarify the details."

and the second to last paragraph says: To be fair, the University explains that while all subjects exhibited higher levels of these traits, they were still all within the range of normal. If you would like to read the study yourself, you can find it in the journal Personality and Individual Differences.

I think that may be from a satirical newspaper

Firstly I am not sure if this is the best thread to discuss this topic in. If as indeed you assert the Air Asia boss attributed this event to climate change then I would agree that this is a foolish statement, it confuses weather with climate, I have not seen the statement so I can not have an opinion. I also note that the first graph refers to tropical cyclone frequency whilst the second refers to Global Tropical Accumulated Cyclone energy, as a very genuine question would a weather event such as the one that brought this airliner down likely to be a cyclone a hurricane or some other type of weather event. In regards to my initial observation, I certainly stand by that, frequency and intensity are different things, it would have made more sense to post the second graph first. In terms of accuracy there are many contradictory graphs floating around the net. I have no opinion about the accuracy of these graphs, it is easy to pick out individual graphs to support anything (on both sides). I do note however that the first graph (Tropical storms and Hurricanes) is attributed the American Geophysical Union, does this mean that you regard them as a trustworthy source? That is fine because I also have quite a high regard for their scientific rigour, that we can agree on. So if we agree on the scientific rigour of the AGU then it might be interesting to see what else they have to say: “Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia. While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated." http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf I don't necessarily doubt the graphs but to draw broader conclusions like only idiots like NASA, CSIRO (for a full see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists ) accept the scientific evedence is hard to beleive. At this stage I would suggest that the doubters seem to be winning the argument (although most definitely not within the scientific profession) so not much will change so I don't get why the doubters get so agitated, it is pretty much business as usual, only time will tell which position is correct.

Bex are you saying my post is hateful? I only pointed out that the graph does not contradict the statement Facthunter made as the statement is about intensity and the graph is about frequency.

GG I believe Facthunter said GG The graph you have posted is about frequency not about intensity and in no way contradicts what Facthunter asserted.