progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 8:38pm:


It's only turning further towards the direction you don't like....

The Old Parties...Greens, Lib, Lab - 30 years of epic ideological, economic and environmental policy Fail - the road to hell is paved with good intentions morons - but i suspect yours are malicious and corrupt.

Whats the difference between this crap and any other doomsday Armageddon fantasy - the point is the Greens and Labor are environmental vandals and they have nothing but fail...they should be ashamed of their anti planet consumption subsidizing policies.  Then Rise Up Australia Party has the answers, the old parties have squat...

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 24^th, 2012 at 3:21pm:

No they advocate religious freedom, they oppose the imposition of any religious law or belief on people by force - they also oppose the state legislating on traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreating family and yes they oppose the state using homosexual propaganda as a weapon against the Australian people.  So what is your problem,?  You dont know because you have squat and you dont know why you even think the way you do - you just eat, shite, sleep and fart and don't know anything.

Prevailing wrote on Jul 24^th, 2012 at 3:27pm:


Our laws are based on modern christianity.  Therefore you dumb ass party needs to go back and rework all our laws.

Marriage has nothing to do with a family. Are you going to inforce that childless hetro marriages automatically disolve after 10 years ?

Our law is structured in such a way it will bugger you in the end every time because its principles are righteous....its above your IQ pay packet...

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 10:41pm:

This is part of what is changing for the better

---------
IF THERE is any endeavour whose fruits should be freely available, that endeavour is surely publicly financed science. Morally, taxpayers who wish to should be able to read about it without further expense. And science advances through cross-fertilisation between projects. Barriers to that exchange slow it down.

There is a widespread feeling that the journal publishers who have mediated this exchange for the past century or more are becoming an impediment to it. One of the latest converts is the British government. On July 16th it announced that, from 2013, the results of taxpayer-financed research would be available, free and online, for anyone to read and redistribute.

Britain’s government is not alone. On July 17th the European Union followed suit. It proposes making research paid for by its next scientific-spending round—which runs from 2014 to 2020, and will hand out about €80 billion, or $100 billion, in grants—similarly easy to get hold of. In America, the National Institutes of Health (NIH, the single-biggest source of civil research funds in the world) has required open-access publishing since 2008. And the Wellcome Trust, a British foundation that is the world’s second-biggest charitable source of scientific money, after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, also insists that those who take its shilling make their work available free.

Criticism of journal publishers usually boils down to two things. One is that their processes take months, when the internet could allow them to take days. The other is that because each paper is like a mini-monopoly, which workers in the field have to read if they are to advance their own research, there is no incentive to keep the price down. The publishers thus have scientists—or, more accurately, their universities, which pay the subscriptions—in an armlock. That, combined with the fact that the raw material (manuscripts of papers) is free, leads to generous returns. In 2011 Elsevier, a large Dutch publisher, made a profit of £768m on revenues of £2.06 billion—a margin of 37%. Indeed, Elsevier’s profits are thought so egregious by many people that 12,000 researchers have signed up to a boycott of the company’s journals.

more
http://www.economist.com/node/21559317