I know exactly what inventions are I have two of my own successfully out there in the wild working right now. You're probably walking on one of them everyday! One was good enough to be plagiarised by several foreign companies at my loss I might add. See, little guys don't have a hope in hell fighting foreign companies in foreign lands!

How many inventions do you have under your belt, Lexi?

It's you that seems to have missed the point. Simply because you're not wired that way, collective hive mind and all. Plus you wont read on new matilda what it means to come up with one so you're can't easily paste someone else's thoughts and claim to be an authority on what they actually are on your own.

A lot of the inventions and innovation you take for granted these days were done at a time when people were allowed to tinker. Tinkering is forbidden in this country today. So it's up to government institutions to bring us our new toys. What a joy that will be under a loser like the Juliar. So now we're left with foreign companies and individuals, right back where we started. Fun aint it? Going in circles that is!

You see, we've heard it all before from those parasites. It's got nothing to do with making Australia a smarter country and all to do with retaining power and stealing more money from hard working aussies.

RawMustard,

I'm sure you have us all intrigued trying to work out what invention of yours we are all likely to be 'walking on every day'. Feel like sharing?

And, good on you for using your talents 'inventively', but I'm sure you are fully aware that many discoveries require a lot more than pondering or 'tinkering' - as in biotechnology, immunology, cosmology, and a huge range of other legitimate research avenues - requiring in fact huge investments in manpower, equipment and time, as can only be provided via formal R&D facilities - whether in private 'industrial' organisations, or public organisations like the CSIRO, universities, teaching hospitals, etc. (Where would the U.S. be without NASA, JPL and MIT, etc?)

Gillard/Swan's arbitrary diversion of funds from legitimate research demonstrates not only a complete disregard for and lack of understanding of the merits and essentiality of these activities, but also devalues the worth and reasonable expectations of the individuals and organisations involved. This is more than just a significant policy back-flip. The proposed diversion of funds to a non-existent jobs-development program is pure political conjuring for no other purpose than to fool the gullible minority who may just be fool enough to be impressed by such blatant chicanery.

Research is a long-term commitment. Meddling with established funding arrangements and expectations is not only shortsighted, it is dishonourable. And, when done only for purely political purpose, it is nothing short of disreputable. (With such uncertainty, is it any wonder so many valuable discoveries end up being developed overseas?)

We expect better of our governments, including truth, and reliability.

>Tinkering is forbidden in this country today.<

How so, Mustard?

Belly, until our trade union movement elevates itself to negotiating in good faith with industry and commerce with the interests of both the 'organisation' and the 'workers' being equally paramount, progress will always be seen to be a someone's expense, and can therefore only be retarded and less than optimal. A step backward, in order to hasten more assuredly forward, is not a regression.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/she-gets-knocked-down-20130222-2ewyr.html
Saltpeter how did you come to the idea unions do not negotiate in good faith.
Been at that table? I have you clearly have not,unless you are one of the few very bad bosses, they are the few.
And after being found to under pay, not pay superannuation, some times refuse sick pay, they ALWAYS target the union, for catching the creeps out!
My link highlights the problem Labor faces.
IF we go in to a loss, ruled by Gillard, we carry her baggage for three terms in opposition.
If Rudd comes back unsupported by the current owners of my party? same result.
BUT given the support he should be given, possible victory.
HOW dare! any one say the answer is solidarity, pretend the acts of 2010 are ok, that we expect ownership not just of our party,s but us, its followers,
'LABOR VOTERS WOULD SNEER AT THIS IF ABBOTT SO ORDERED HIS VOTERS~!

Dear RawMustard,

Firstly allow me to apologise to you for making
wrong assumptions about you. I was simply going
by your previous post. Saltpetre summed things up
beautifully in his reply to you. As a librarian
I got excited at the PM's announcement of their
investment in R & D for reasons that I've already
stated. I thought it a step in the right direction.

Dear Saltpetre,

Thank You for such a well reasoned post.

Dear Belly,

I hope that you'll continue to explain things to
us from your experienced perspective so that we
can understand the situation better. Thank You.

Dear Belly,

Got your point, no problem, I have a lot of time for the trade union movement, and was a member myself for many years, and no complaints.
The movement has come a long way, particularly from the Hawke era - in his time as ACTU Secretary, in federal parliament, and particularly as PM.
But, as you indicate, there are factions, blocks, and interests which are not always in agreement, do not always see 'eye to eye' - different styles, different priorities. Hence, things like 2010 can happen 'out of the blue' - resulting possibly in 'out of the frying pan into the fire'? History will be its own judge on that.
It's pretty hard to turn back the clock, or to put the Genie back into the bottle. I think Rudd coming back as PM falls squarely into that category - near impossible - but that's only my opinion.

I believe there is room for further evolution and development in trade unionism, and with it hope of achieving even better representation in the membership and in the political wing. Fingers crossed, but it could be beneficial to the whole country.

>'LABOR VOTERS WOULD SNEER AT THIS IF ABBOTT SO ORDERED HIS VOTERS~!<

The Libs don't have that sort of following - no-one pulling strings, no one telling them how to vote, no 'factions', no 'back room' conclaves or secret movements. Lib/Nat voters decide on merit alone - merit of policies, of representation, and of results - in the clear light of day.
Abbott is only a parliamentary choice; Lib voters will make their individual decision on the merits of the whole shebang, not the one man or woman at the top.
The Greens seem to work along similar lines - but with a lot more 'networking' to get the message out to their diverse audience. Good on 'em too.
Rudd made history and opportunity; Gillard and Co 'stole a march', have faltered at the mid and the furlong, and are in disarray in the straight - the unseen cyber-jockey out of rhythm and in clear risk of falling.

The unions seem incredibly corrupt, hence the AWU problems with Wilson and Gillard. The health workers problems with Thomson, Williamson and Co. also look rather grubby. At the state level the Obeid and Macdonald affair leaves a dirty taste in everyone’s mouth. The days of Labour should be over.