The totally off-topic thread

[Princess Fiona]

I have just finished series 4 of Game of Thrones.

Bring on series 5.

Believe it or not we are just about to watch Series 1 Episode 1
Late adopters we are

 

[amaroo]

Believe it or not we are just about to watch Series 1 Episode 1
Late adopters we are

I can believe it.

 

[JessicaTam]

Believe it or not we are just about to watch Series 1 Episode 1
Late adopters we are

Enjoy - and have series 2 at the ready.

 

[Shelf]

Believe it or not we are just about to watch Series 1 Episode 1
Late adopters we are

Brace yourself, late nights await!

 

[anat0l]

For people who wear glasses...

I can understand that glasses are necessary for certain activities that require improved sight, e.g. reading, driving, etc...however, what is the explanation for mannerisms related to removing and putting back on glasses?

In some cases it is very predictable: people use their glasses to read something and then promptly remove them (holding them in their hand) as they start talking and reading is not necessary at that moment. So you see a pattern of glasses on and glasses off, corresponding to when one reads their notes or a passage and when they address others. In other cases, it seems people remove their glasses to look less threatening (e.g. when saying hello to children); in even other cases, people seem to remove their glasses when they are about to express something rather stressful, or with exasperation or rage.

 

[JohnK]

Good grief JohnK. That's almost a donation of blood.

Not quite but it took them about 20 minutes to work out how many vials they needed.

Wow, I think my maximum is 5.

I think I have 4-5 in the past but never this many.

 

[JohnM]

Employee and employer contributions. I don't believe there are any taxpayer contributions.

That is not really the core of the matter. If the fund [(employee + employer contributions) + investment earnings] over the long term doesn't provide sufficient liquidity to maintain the defined benefit (with CPI indexation, presumably) without the pensioner feeling any downside effects, then it can't be regarded as 'fully funded'. Someone is, logically, underwriting it. Generally, since the vast majority of defined benefit schemes are government, that means the taxpayer.

The problem is: 'employer contributions' in the government sector can be illusory as they may be notional, not real. This was certainly the situation that applied in the past.

The Commonwealth Government has sought to extricate taxpayers from this liability, and underpin it into the future, with the Future Fund which was started with the proceeds of the sale of the last tranche of Telstra - simply because in the past the employer contributions (ie. taxpayer funds from consolidated revenue) were only notional, not real, because, based on history, it was thought that tax revenue would always rise. Quite how state governments and similar have acted to underpin the equivalent liability or shift it from consolidated revenue, I do not know - but universally around Australia defined benefit schemes have been chopped because of the contingent liability blow-out.

An example of the results: The New York Police Department has a defined benefit retirement scheme . The amount now paid out by the City of New York on police pensions exceeds what they pay out on salaries for active officers. In other words, the NYC taxpayer is underwriting the pension scheme which has grown like topsy because of early retirements and greater longevity. Such examples are rife in the USA, where the middle class predominantly have defined benefit superannuation. (The lower class, of course, have nothing while the rich are just fine and dandy).

And it's not just government or semi-government. Some of the biggest US corporations are in the same situation (General Motors is a classic example) - which has dramatically affected their competitiveness. All their recent wage agreements with staff have severely limited the pension scheme aspects.

It was precisely the vision of this happening in Australia that led to defined benefit schemes being chopped. That realisation happened here long before it did in the USA, Europe and Britain. And it coincided with the introduction of universal superannuation in Australia. The phased-in 9% (which was, and is, never going to be enough) was meant to rise to 15% (which would be barely enough without working beyond 65), but that got stalled for years.

As anyone working in the university sector in Australia may recognise with an impending sense of horror is that the supposed defined benefits 'promised' by UniSuper are very likely in the long (maybe shorter than they think) run to be an illusion - simply because the long-run earnings are not likely to be sufficient to meet that 'promise' - and there is no bottomless pit there to underwrite it. This time-bomb has been well-canvassed by some of our best-known superannuation authorities and has attracted the ire of some more prescient university staff and their lawyers.

 

[medhead]

That is not really the core of the matter. If the fund [(employee + employer contributions) + investment earnings] over the long term doesn't provide sufficient liquidity to maintain the defined benefit (with CPI indexation, presumably) without the pensioner feeling any downside effects, then it can't be regarded as 'fully funded'. Someone is, logically, underwriting it. Generally, since the vast majority of defined benefit schemes are government, that means the taxpayer.

The problem is: 'employer contributions' in the government sector can be illusory as they may be notional, not real. This was certainly the situation that applied in the past.

The Commonwealth Government has sought to extricate taxpayers from this liability, and underpin it into the future, with the Future Fund which was started with the proceeds of the sale of the last tranche of Telstra - simply because in the past the employer contributions (ie. taxpayer funds from consolidated revenue) were only notional, not real, because, based on history, it was thought that tax revenue would always rise. Quite how state governments and similar have acted to underpin the equivalent liability or shift it from consolidated revenue, I do not know - but universally around Australia defined benefit schemes have been chopped because of the contingent liability blow-out.

An example of the results: The New York Police Department has a defined benefit retirement scheme . The amount now paid out by the City of New York on police pensions exceeds what they pay out on salaries for active officers. In other words, the NYC taxpayer is underwriting the pension scheme which has grown like topsy because of early retirements and greater longevity. Such examples are rife in the USA, where the middle class predominantly have defined benefit superannuation. (The lower class, of course, have nothing while the rich are just fine and dandy).

And it's not just government or semi-government. Some of the biggest US corporations are in the same situation (General Motors is a classic example) - which has dramatically affected their competitiveness. All their recent wage agreements with staff have severely limited the pension scheme aspects.

It was precisely the vision of this happening in Australia that led to defined benefit schemes being chopped. That realisation happened here long before it did in the USA, Europe and Britain. And it coincided with the introduction of universal superannuation in Australia. The phased-in 9% (which was, and is, never going to be enough) was meant to rise to 15% (which would be barely enough without working beyond 65), but that got stalled for years.

As anyone working in the university sector in Australia may recognise with an impending sense of horror is that the supposed defined benefits 'promised' by UniSuper are very likely in the long (maybe shorter than they think) run to be an illusion - simply because the long-run earnings are not likely to be sufficient to meet that 'promise' - and there is no bottomless pit there to underwrite it. This time-bomb has been well-canvassed by some of our best-known superannuation authorities and has attracted the ire of some more prescient university staff and their lawyers.

It depends on the fund. What you talking about in terms of investment earnings is only a small part of the issue. Fundamentally the government has entered an agreement to pay a benefit to the employee in the future. So topping up missing investment earnings is not really underwriting, it is making good on the commitments made by the government.

But in terms of fully funded, that means the government/employer has actually put aside their contribution at the time that it is due and not left the money in consolidated revenue with a future liability on consolidated revenue in the future. Queensland government under Joh put aside the super money to the full extent due, they fully funded the super. That is the genesis of things like QIC/QSuper. The commonwealth didn't, although I believe funding commonwealth super was one of Wittlam's things. That is a failure of those governments not the defined benefit scheme.

So there are actually fully funded defined benefit schemes out there, the contributions from both employer and employee have been put aside.

 

[Hvr]

For people who wear glasses...

I can understand that glasses are necessary for certain activities that require improved sight, e.g. reading, driving, etc...however, what is the explanation for mannerisms related to removing and putting back on glasses?

In some cases it is very predictable: people use their glasses to read something and then promptly remove them (holding them in their hand) as they start talking and reading is not necessary at that moment. So you see a pattern of glasses on and glasses off, corresponding to when one reads their notes or a passage and when they address others. In other cases, it seems people remove their glasses to look less threatening (e.g. when saying hello to children); in even other cases, people seem to remove their glasses when they are about to express something rather stressful, or with exasperation or rage.

With my glasses I need them to see the ground when I stand up. However, I cannot use my current glasses to read because they are tuned for long distance rather than short distance, therefore I will remove them to read anything. I have tried multi-focals but just cannot use them.

As for the other situations, they're a crutch or a delaying tool much like people used to light a cigarette.

 

[medhead]

Indeed. I'm short sighted. So I can't read with glasses on and get a headache if I try, because it's all blurry through the glasses. But need them to see anything long distance. No doubt many people who read with glasses have to remove them to be able to see when looking up, or when looking at people up close.

 

[Major]

I first started to wear glasses for reading only. When I finished a report I simply took them off and put them on my desk or meeting table to talk to people or walk around.
It wasn't to look less threatening, I just didn't need them

 

[bass_ke]

Short sighted here bit with a relatively weak script.

I wear them 100% of the time but they are extremely comfortable

 

[robd]

Indeed. I'm short sighted. So I can't read with glasses on and get a headache if I try, because it's all blurry through the glasses. But need them to see anything long distance. No doubt many people who read with glasses have to remove them to be able to see when looking up, or when looking at people up close.

I have the reverse issue. I need to wear glasses to read anything at less than arms length, but everything past that, such as my work computer screen, is unreadable with my glasses on. I have to sit my glasses on the end of my nose to be able to read something right beside me and then look over the rim to type on the computer. Very annoying.

 

[robd]

Believe it or not we are just about to watch Series 1 Episode 1
Late adopters we are

I had four days off sick a couple of weeks ago and did all 4 seasons in that time. I couldn't put it down (so to speak).

 

[SeatBackForward]

I have just finished series 4 of Game of Thrones.

Bring on series 5.

Ditto.

Its an interesting situation where the author of the book has not completed the books, while production of the TV series continues. You have to wonder if, to any degree, the future books are going to be influenced by what has been been depicted in the tv series - which doesn't necessarily follow the narrative in the books.

 

[Bindibuys]

For the past say 5 years I have been set up with "mono vision" which has worked a treat.

I wear contacts ( -7 & -6 near blind as a bat - focus point about 6 inches from my nose)

My left eyes contact is set for reading/computer distance, my right eye is set up for distance. I can go from one distance to the other without missing a beat.

I have 1 set of glasses that bring my reading eye up to distance vision for when I am driving at night (the reading eye gets the slight halos from the lights) or if I am going to the theatre/show to watch something with stage lighting in the distance.

After 5 years I am now only just starting to feel I need something more powerful when reading - especially tiny font like maps.

Been wearing contacts for 30 years now.

 

[Bindibuys]

Been away in the UK/Scotland for the past 6 weeks, season 4 waiting for us when we arrived home on Sunday. Only managed 3 episodes so far, but I see a marathon in front of the TV this weekend. (while doing the ironing of course )

 

[Pushka]

Believe it or not we are just about to watch Series 1 Episode 1
Late adopters we are

Ah. make sure the kiddies are not around.

I watched all four series in the space of a month - just finished Series four Wednesday. Off to Dubrovnik tomorrow (via Venice) so had to see the series so I could pick out location shots. They are currently filming series 5 there, and Spain and Ireland.

I'm also reading the books which are surprisingly easy to read.

 

[robd]

Ah. make sure the kiddies are not around.

A bit uncomfortable watching with adult offspring too

 

[Pushka]

A bit uncomfortable watching with adult offspring too

Yep, my 24 year old son and I have a pact that we don't watch it together. Oh my, on a big screen, the things you see....