• Join ccmfans.net

    ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!

    If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.

    ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.

...as seen on the Internet

dibo

Well-Known Member
I thought a thread dedicated to good stuff seen on t3h 1nt3rwe8z (but on blogs and other independent sites, not on mainstream news sites) might be a good idea, mostly because I read a piece that made me laugh and angry all at the same time and I didn't have anywhere to share it on here.

So here goes, feel free to post interesting things you find, and comment on them etc.

I follow @swearybear on the twitterz (and recommend you do too because he mixes funny and right and doesn't f**king mess about), and got to browsing his site, and came across this:

Sweary Bear’s Guide to Not Curing Cancer With Unicorns
June 11, 2013

Have you ever tried to become an oncologist? It’s actually quite f**king difficult.

First, you need to finish high school with a higher-than-Lindsay-Lohan-on-a-relapse ATAR.

Then there’s the undergrad degree. And I’m not talking the usual kind of undergrad degree where you can spend about twelve hours a week off your tits listening to ukulele bands and shithouse performance poetry in the uni bar trying to hustle pool so you’ve got enough coin to buy chips and gravy. I’m talking six or seven years of actual f**king study and lectures and tutorials and clinical placements and getting elbow-deep in cadavers and only a tiny bit of being completely trolleyed and mostly only on weekends.

But you’ve only just started. You’ve still got an internship and a residency to get through, which means you’ll have been training, studying, researching, writing, talking, prodding, poking, testing and caring for about eight years and you’re still only about halfway f**king qualified. Add on another six or more years of post-post-graduate training to become a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, which is precisely as f**king important and proper and scary as it sounds; get a few gazillion hours of patient contact, rural placements and being called out at stupid-o-clock to care for people under your belt; undertake the mother of all assessments; and there you are. Australia finally thinks you know enough to manage and treat cancer patients. You’re an oncologist.

I’ll tell you who’s not an oncologist. This blogger and flogger of f**king “motivational jewellery” and f**king “wellness wisdom nuggets”. She’ll tell you how to make delicious raw desserts and how to spend hours a day making juice and how to squirt coffee up your arsehole while wearing a nice frock and smiling for photos.

Will she cure cancer? f**k no.

I’ll tell you who else isn’t an oncologist. This f**king guy. He’ll tell you that very special peptides made from very special piss will make you all better, but not before you cough up thousands of very special dollars. He’ll tell you he’s been published widely, as if that means a f**king thing if it’s not in a peer-reviewed journal that actual experts actually read. He’ll tell you he’s a f**king renegade genius, because no other quack in the history of the world before him ever claimed that, did they?

Will he cure cancer? f**k no.

I’ll tell you who else isn’t an oncologist. Arsewipes who sell this f**king sinister slime. They’ll tell you this particular mix of poison and false hope can magically tell the difference between cancerous cells and healthy tissue, and only burn a massive gaping hole in your face in a nice way. They’ll tell you it’s only been banned by every self-respecting public health authority because they’re big f**king meanies who don’t want health crusaders to have the right to basic freedoms like promoting essential wellness or some other f**king bollocks.

Will they cure cancer? f**k no.

There are thousands of easy ways to make money. You can sell jewellery or arse-espressos on a pretty website. You can test piss-derivatives on desperate patients for huge wads of cash. You can supply bloodroot mixed with jojoba and tell people to smear it on their sunspots until they f**king fall off.

Oncology isn’t easy. Sure, you can make money from it, but only if you spend years of time away from your own family trying to save someone else’s; using the very best knowledge that the collective history of thousands of really f**king smart people have managed to build over decades of dedication, to keep as many people as healthy as possible in the face of an indiscriminate bastard of a disease.

It’s f**king hard, it’s f**king heartbreaking and it’s f**king important.

f**k you, cancer quacks. f**k. You.


Right on.
 

midfielder

Well-Known Member
I read the following article and enjoyed it but tho its hidden away .. so I have posted it just to share... maybe when you find an article you enjoy post it here so we can all read it...I liked this article ...
http://m.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/lets-excise-this-celebrity-cancer-20130727-2qqvs.html
Let's excise this celebrity cancer

Comment
It's about time we stopped lauding the wrong people for all the wrong reasons.
I hate celebrities. Not in the particular. Many rich and famous people got that way by working hard, being talented and getting lucky.
Let me take that back. I do hate them in the particular.
Since two out of three of the required ingredients for success in our society, talent and luck, are beyond our control, it follows that no one deserves wealth or fame. But that's not how we treat celebrities.
We worship them. They're in a class above, like gods. We fawn over them and gossip about them.
We're even sad - really, truly grief-stricken - when they die!

Like a dysfunctional relationship, all the love flows unidirectionally, from us to them. Insulated in first class, consulting with their private bankers and safe behind the guard booths of their gated communities, they don't care about us; they don't know about us. They don't give a crap and are, therefore, the sane ones.
There's nothing inherently wrong with noticing achievements - when they result from moxie and grit. A person who, through effort and will (not luck or talent or some other accident of birth), transcends the norm to do something amazing is worthy of celebration. The average passer-by who runs into a burning building to save someone is a hero; a firefighter who draws a pay cheque, received training and consciously chose the job is not.
Trouble arises when, as in the US today, what a citizen has achieved by their own effort and courage is dwarfed by the tsunami of adulation that person receives. Why do American cable-news anchors end interviews with military generals by thanking them ''for their service''? As with the firefighters, joining the army is a job. They chose it. There is nothing admirable about such service; to the contrary, they have enlisted as professional assassins in an institution that hasn't engaged in a justifiable killing in three-quarters of a century. But even if you don't feel that way (which means you do not live in Pakistan), these desk jockeys don't fight. The biggest dangers they face are paper cuts and office politics. Thank them for service? Screw that.

 

midfielder

Well-Known Member
Continued ..
TV generals are celebrities. They are famous because ''The System'' has somehow elevated them above all others; we pay attention simply because they are famous.
Now, the gatekeepers of the media have decided it is time for you to care deeply, not about something you should care about (homelessness, climate change, the class divide, mass species extinction, bands that are good but you'll never hear about), but the birth of Prince George to Prince Bill and Princess Kate.
''The royal couple can't do anything else but wait,'' we were told before the baby's arrival. Also: ''The world [is] waiting.'' Royal baby hype, when you think about it - but who has time? - is a Dagwood sandwich of absurdity. Even in Britain, only a few dozen psychotic ''royal watcher'' dorks were paying attention. And the main takeaway - that ''the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's baby will one day be head of the armed forces, supreme governor of the Church of England, head of state of 16 countries and possibly, if the role is maintained in the future, head of the Commonwealth, which covers 54 nations [if you count the suspended Fiji] across the world and 2 billion citizens'' - is belied by the existence of one Prince Charles, 64, still no closer to the throne since Queen Liz refuses to kick off. Poor Chuck! ''I'll run out of time soon. I shall have snuffed it if I'm not careful,'' he confided last year. Once, he too was a royal baby.
Prince George is the ultimate celebrity - before having drawn a breath, he was dubbed ''Someone You're Supposed to Know and Care About'', and thus guaranteed a life of ease.
Everywhere you look, celebrities cash in for being famous. I wish they would all die. I wish the idea of celebrity would die.
Like Lena Dunham, who created the HBO show Girls. If Hades, god of the underworld is reading, I would happily trade her in for the late investigative journalist Michael Hastings. Lena drives her burning car into a wall, Michael comes back, it's all good. (Oh, Lord, now I'm doing it - calling celebrities by their first names as if I know them.)
So Random House, which routinely rejects brilliant manuscripts by authors who would have been thrilled to have landed $35,000, bought her collection of ''personal essays about sex, mortality and food'' for $3.5 million.
Dunham is 27. Maybe she can write, but there's no way to tell that from her show, which has the distinction of being the only truly dreadful show HBO has ever aired - awful writing, lame acting, insipid plots. Why is Random paying her 100 advances for one book? Why did HBO sign her? Why does The New York Times cover her show so relentlessly?
Well, as The Guardian notes: ''Dunham's parents are both well-known members of the art world and the girls of Girls are all children of famous parents. Zosia Mamet (Shoshanna) is the daughter of playwright David Mamet, Jemima Kirke (Jessa) is the daughter of former Bad Company drummer Simon Kirke, and Allison Williams (Marnie) is the daughter of the CBS newsreader Brian Williams.''
As with the royal baby, heredity more than makes up for lack of talent.
Magazine covers run what sells, what sells is what's famous, what's famous is celebrity. The covers make the celebrities even more famous. Which makes everyone else more obscure.
Take, for example, the Clinton family. To Guantanamo, ideally.
First there's Bill, whose presidency stands as a memorial to squandered opportunity: screwed up healthcare, sucked up to Republicans and got himself impeached after pushing through two significant policy changes - the North American Free Trade Agreement and ''ending welfare as we know it'' - that screwed millions of Americans. Oh, and he didn't leave behind a single new social program despite presiding over the internet-fuelled biggest boom of all time.
Unlike, say, Jimmy Carter, Clinton hasn't done much as a former president either. Yet he's making money as a speaker: $US13.4 million in 2011 alone.
What does Clinton have to say that's worth so much money? Nothing. I've heard him speak several times. He's pretty boring. Others disagree.
''The work he does around the world has given him a very unique perspective,'' Vancouver-based communications executive Norman Stowe says. ''Not just a former president's perspective, but also the very unique perspective from his philanthropic work.''
Bullshit. People pay to see Clinton because he's famous. Now he's famous for earning a lot of money for speaking. Which makes more people want to pay him.
Clinton collected $500,000 for yapping at former Israeli president Shimon Peres' 90th-birthday party last month. Peres could have had 100 first-rate experts on a variety of important subjects speak to him for the same amount. Sick.
Now Clinton's wife, Hillary, is cashing in on the lecture circuit. Her main accomplishment is having married Bill. And putting up with him. And their daughter Chelsea isn't far behind. Three famous Clintons with nothing to say, no accomplishments to point to, $100 million richer just for being famous. Does it matter? You bet. Celebrities suck the air out of the room, depriving more important issues, and the people who advocate for them, of media attention and thus an audience. They collect money, as with those book advances, that would do society a lot more good in more hands. By attracting so much attention, by being so insipid and famous at the same time, they warp our values and our politics.
What to do instead? Quentin Tarantino has it right. He plucks talented actors out of obscurity and elevates them. Christoph Waltz's brilliant turns as a sadistic SS officer in Inglourious Basterds and as a dangerous dentist and bounty hunter in Django Unchained rate as some of the best performances in cinema of the past few years.
Thank god no one is putting Waltz on any magazine covers. Yet.
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
I made a thread for exactly this purpose just a week or so ago. You posted in it. Hence I've merged the two.
 

midfielder

Well-Known Member
Some news from NZ ... Tis a very interesting approach made by the NZ Reserve Bank... my guess is both to stop a housing bubble and to ensure their banks are not over exposed to a property bubble busting...

http://m.smh.com.au/business/world-...gh-value-mortgage-lending-20130820-2s8r9.html

New Zealand's central bank today moved to rein in a hot housing market to prevent a potential bubble, imposing its long-threatened limits on low deposit-high value house loans and sending the currency tumbling more than a third of a cent.

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) Governor Graeme Wheeler said from Oct 1 banks would be limited to no more than 10 per cent of their total new house lending on mortgages exceeding 80 per cent of the value of the property.

He said the restrictions on the amount of high loan-to-value ratio lending (LVR) was its most effective macro-prudential tools in controlling the housing market.

"The LVR restrictions are designed to help slow the rate of housing-related credit growth and house price inflation, thereby reducing the risk of a substantial downward correction in house prices that would damage the financial sector and the broader economy," Wheeler said in a speech.

The restrictions were not unexpected and the RBNZ has been voicing its concern since the end of last year about the rapid growth in house prices and the inflation threat it posed.

Industry and government data have show median prices at record levels, driven largely by growth in the biggest city Auckland and earthquake damaged Christchurch, where demand exceeds supply. Median house prices rose 8.6 per cent in the 12 months to July, according to industry data.

Still, Wheeler said the RBNZ was reluctant to use its official cash rate (OCR) to try to cool the market.

"However, while higher policy rates may well be needed next year, as expanding domestic demand starts to generate overall inflation pressures, this is not the case at present..any OCR increases in the near term would risk causing the New Zealand dollar to appreciate sharply," he said.

The comments saw the New Zealand dollar fall to a low of 79.79 US cents from around 80.20 US cents. The 2-year swap rates fell 10 basis points to 3.45 per cent.

Wheeler renewed the RBNZ's warning to banks not to circumvent the measures, with new types of loan packages.

However, analysts were sceptical the measures will have much lasting effect after the "initial sticker shock", which might see prices fall and demand slow.

"We suspect that, over time, house prices would be bid up to much the same levels as they would in the absence of LVR restrictions - perhaps at a slower pace, with fewer competing bidders, but ultimately reaching a similar end-point," said Westpac chief economist Dominic Stephens.
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/dear-mr-dhead-your-flybuys-card-is-ready-20130909-2tfv2.html

729Flybuys-620x349.jpg


Oh dear...
 

true believer

Well-Known Member
Where do you think the cannon will be pointed at?
phifft you can never have enough fire power when it comes to the scum.
im still scared from when I came up with a charge collector (super capacitor/ big bloody zapping battery)
for under the away seats .and no one supported it. I even assigned wombat , as the responsible person for the zap switch.
oooh the tears mrs tb had to wipe away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adz

VicMariner

Well-Known Member
Mark Viduka song. It's pretty good. (Man could we use another MV).

Here's a song about Emile Hesky. It's not so good.

Edit: Youtube videos don't show on my browser so if they're not there just yell at me or something.
 

midfielder

Well-Known Member
Next time you think of surfing ... SCUBA Diving ... maybe spearfish...

Read this a sea monster swallowed a 2.7 m white pointer ...

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...ng-to-scientists/story-fnjwkt0b-1226947396017

A HUGE 2.7-metre-long great white shark was eaten by an even bigger “mystery sea monster”, according to scientists.

Researchers had tagged the healthy shark to track its movements as part of a study, but were shocked when the tracking device washed up on a beach in Australia four months later, just four kilometres away.

Data captured on the device showed there was a rapid temperature rise along with a sudden, sharp 580-metres plunge.

The researchers believe the data proves it was eaten by something much bigger, saying the temperatures recorded indicate it went inside another animal’s digestive system.


The only theory they have so far was that it was gobbled up by a “colossal cannibal great white shark”.

The case is detailed in an upcoming documentary by the Smithsonian Institute, called the Hunt for the Super Predator, which draws from an earlier ABC documentary The Search for the Ocean’s Super Predator.

“When I was first told about the data that came back from the tag that was on the shark, I was absolutely blown away,” filmmaker Dave Riggs says in the documentary.

“The question that not only came to my mind but everyone’s mind who was involved was, ‘what did that?’ It was obviously eaten. What’s gonna eat a shark that big? What could kill a [9-foot] great white?”

The documentary will air in the US on June 25.
 

nearlyyellow

Well-Known Member
Interesting, thanks. I don't know that their malls are structured the same as ours. For instance, do they have picture theatre complexes in them? Westfield Tuggerah and Erina Fair do. Both those also have a fair degree of integrated community services in them, post offices, banks, medical joints, government and semi government offices etc.. It's a bit hard to draw a parallel without knowing whether they're tenanted the same as ours. But interesting nonetheless, thanks.
 

Online statistics

Members online
45
Guests online
484
Total visitors
529

Forum statistics

Threads
6,808
Messages
398,202
Members
2,764
Latest member
JosephEmoto
Top