Nielsen: 53-47 to Coalition in Queensland

More mixed messages from Queensland, along with one very clear one – here comes Clive Palmer.

Two new polls out today from Queensland, one being another of Newspoll’s composite marginal seat jobs, the other a statewide Nielsen survey of 1014 respondents. Taken together, the two continue a confounding pattern throughout this campaign of localised polling from Queensland painting a grimmer picture for Labor than polling conducted statewide. The Newspoll survey targets 800 respondents in seven of the state’s eight Labor-held seats – Moreton (1.1%), Petrie (2.5%), Lilley (3.2%), Capricornia (3.7%), Blair (4.2%), Rankin (5.4%) and Oxley (5.8%) – the odd man out being Kevin Rudd’s seat of Griffith (8.5%). The combined primary vote results are 38% for Labor (down from 42.4% at the 2010 election), 42% for the Coalition (up from 39.8%), 8% for the Greens (down from 11.0%) and 12% for “others” (up substantially from 6.8% – hold that thought). On two-party preferred, the result is 51-49 in favour of the Coalition, a swing of 4.7%. Importantly though, this has been determined based on preference flows from the 2010 election. Hold that thought as well.

The Nielsen poll as published in the Fairfax papers comes with a headline two-party preferred figure of 53-47, which is at least superficially encouraging for Labor in that it suggests a swing of 2% from 2010. Unlike the Newspoll result, this comes from respondent-allocated rather than previous-election preferences (hold that thought still further). However, the real story the poll has to tell lies in the primary vote figures. Labor is at just 31%, down from 34.6% in 2010, but the Coalition is also down slightly, from 46.5% to 45%. The Greens are on 8%, down on 10.9% at the 2010 election but at the high end of what they’ve been getting generally in Queensland in recent times (perhaps reflecting an improving trend nationally which is perceptible on the BludgerTrack charts). However, the really interesting result is that the Palmer United Party is on 8%, putting into the shade Katter’s Australian Party on 4%.

This cannot dismissed as one freak result, as it has been corroborated by other polling. Roy Morgan has twice had occasion over the last week to trumpet this phenomenon going on beneath the surface of its “others” result. The first poll, published on Friday, had the Palmer United Party at 4% nationally and 6.5% in Queensland. The second, published yesterday, maintained the 4% national result while finding the Queensland figure up to 7.5%. I’m advised that Essential Research also had the party at 4% nationally in its polling this week and at 9% in Queensland, after it barely registered in previous weeks. In fact, the three sets of Queensland polling I have seen over the past few days have all turned in remarkably similar results for Labor, Coalition, Greens and “others” alike.

A clearer picture emerges if the totality of polling from Queensland is plotted out since the return of Kevin Rudd. The chart below maps out the trend from 37 such polls from seven different pollsters, with the usual BludgerTrack accuracy weightings and bias adjustments applied. Black represents the combined “others” vote.

The starting point is a landslip in Labor’s favour after Gillard was deposed, which appeared to consolidate for a fortnight before entering a long and steady slide. Then came the announcement of the election date at the start of August and a two-week period where Queensland appeared to buck the national trend of the time by moving to Labor. This may very well have been a dividend from the recruitment of Peter Beattie, however much media reportage and individual seat polls might have suggested that there wasn’t one.

A new phase then appeared to begin a fortnight ago with the sharp rise of the “others” vote. This has coincided with an onslaught of television advertising from Clive Palmer which has seemed almost to rival that of the major parties. Whereas Palmer’s earlier advertising looked like it belonged on Vine rather than network television, his current efforts appear rehearsed and properly thought out – perhaps even market-researched. Most importantly, the substance of their message – tax cuts which pay for themselves and pension schemes that boost the economy by $70 billion – may well be striking a chord in offering voters the ever more scarce political commodity of “vision”, hallucinogenic though it may be in this particular case.

The other point to be noted about the surge in the “others” vote over the past fortnight is that it looks to be coming more at Labor’s expense than the Coalition’s. For one thing, this has significant implications for the party’s prospects of actually converting votes into seats. Mark Kenny of Fairfax’s take on the Nielsen result is that while it is “almost certain Mr Palmer’s party will not win a seat in the House of Representatives, it is in with a chance of gaining a spot in the Senate”. However, I’m not so sure about this on either count.

Clive Palmer himself is running in the smartly chosen Sunshine Coast seat of Fairfax, where the retirement of Alex Somlyay relieves him of the burden of having to take on a sitting member. The first task facing Palmer is to outpoll Labor, who scored 27.3% in 2010. Gouging votes directly at their expense will make that task a lot easier, as presumably will the fact the Greens (who polled a weighty 18.0% last time) are directing their preferences to him. Palmer’s next hurdle (inappropriate as athletic metaphors might be in his case) would be to overcome Liberal National Party candidate Ted O’Brien, which might not be so easy given Alex Somlyay’s 49.5% vote in 2010. Some credible seat-level polling from Fairfax would be very interesting to see. As for the Senate, lead candidate Glenn Lazarus faces the complication that James Blundell of Katter’s Australian Party has done better out of preferences, standing to directly receive (among other things) Labor’s surplus after the election of its second candidate.

The other point to be made regarding a movement from Labor to the Palmer United Party relates to the issue of deriving two-party preferred results from primary votes in opinion polls. This is always a slightly vexed question, as for most voters the act of vote choice runs no deeper than simply deciding “who to vote for”, be it a party or its leader. If that choice is for a minor party, the question of preference allocation – secondary though it may be for the voter concerned – is the thing that really matters with respect to determining the result. Since the decision is often driven by a how-to-vote card the voter does not see until they arrive at the polling booth, and is in many cases entirely arbitrary, there is limited value in an opinion pollster asking the voter what they propose to do.

For this reason, it has become standard practice over the past decade for pollsters to instead allocate minor party preferences according to how they flowed at the previous election. Only Morgan persists in favouring respondent allocation, with Nielsen conducting both measures while normally using the previous election preferences for its top-line results. Not coincidentally, the primacy of this method has emerged over a period in which the minor party landscape has remained fairly stable, with the dominant Greens being supplemented by a shifting aggregation of smaller concerns, most of them being right-wing in one way or another. However, it was always clear that the utility of the method would be undermined if substantial new minor parties emerged, particularly on the right. For example, the result of the 1996 election would have offered no guidance in allocating votes for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation when it exploded on to the scene a year later.

So it is with the Palmer United Party, at least so far as Queensland is concerned. It might have been anticipated that the party’s conservative provenance would have caused its preferences to behave much as other right-wing minor parties to emerge out of Queensland have done over the years, but the Nielsen poll throws that into doubt by finding that 62% of Palmer United Party voters (together with 55% of Katter’s Australian Party voters) intend to give their preference to Labor. It should be borne in mind here that these sub-samples are extremely small, and consequently have double-digit error margins. Eighty-six per cent of Greens voters said they would preference Labor, which is well above what’s plausible. Even so, it’s perhaps telling that the most recent national Nielsen poll, published the weekend before last, had the Coalition’s lead in Queensland at 55-45 on previous election preferences, but only 52-48 on respondent-allocated preferences – an enormous difference as these things go.

Taken together with the trends observable in the primary vote chart above, it would appear that the last fortnight has seen Labor lose votes in Queensland to the Palmer United Party, and that this pool of voters contains a much larger proportion of Labor identifiers than the non-Greens minor party vote in 2010. So while the recent rise of the Palmer United Party might not be good news for Labor in absolute terms, it may cause two-party preferred projections based on the normal pattern of minor party vote behaviour to be skewed against them. This certainly applies to the BludgerTrack model in its present form, for which I might look at adding a Queensland-specific fix (with the qualification that anything I come up with will of necessity be somewhat arbitrary).

UPDATE: AMR Research has published its third online poll of federal voting intention, conducted between Friday and Monday from a sample of 1101, and it has Labor at 34%, the Coalition at 44% and the Greens at 10%.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,555 comments on “Nielsen: 53-47 to Coalition in Queensland”

Comments Page 31 of 32
1 30 31 32
  1. And hash, it has been pointed out to you already that you can receive 100Mb from many small servers. If you want to come here and pretend you’re on a Bolt blog, go right ahead. Don’t think for a second that you can dodge rational points and be considered a respected poster.

    The extent of your argument seems to me to be “I don’t want to pay much tax”. OK, who does? The point is that if paying more tax means better potential to earn higher income, where’s the argument? This is the case for the NBN, particularly when critical value analysis is performed and acknowledges unforeseen opportunities.

  2. Hash@1496

    you have nothing to offer in the way of knowledge about the NBN other than to copy what others have posted from other sources which of course just happen to support your political agenda.

    ==

    Well I have a degree in comms and I find it amusing that people without one think they can promote an alternative “cheaper and better” design for a national network for decades to come when designing one for a building or a campus is beyond them. It’s the same as many people who think a national economy is just like a household budget and so they “know” how to “fix” an economy (that’s not even broken to begin with). The next logical step in such a crazed Homer Simpson approach to all fields of knowledge is to assume one knows more than one’s doctors about the best way to treat cancer …

  3. @David Mills/1504

    Yeah it seems he thinks that people don’t have the right to research the topic, and think we must be dumb to do so, so we don’t find out the benefits of fibre.

    You research like everything else, from policies, to your household budget, to buying a car.

    And then you question those.

  4. Radguy

    And hash, it has been pointed out to you already that you can receive 100Mb from many small servers.
    ———-

    Don’t make me laugh, hit those ‘small’ servers with 1000s of 100MB/sec connections and it will act like it has the DDOS attack from hell. Again you seem to have no idea about bandwidth.
    ———–
    Don’t think for a second that you can dodge rational points and be considered a respected poster.
    ———–

    I don’t see being classed as a ‘respected poster’ by a bunch of Labor/Greens posters as being at the top of my priority list. Wow I said I’m going to bed 3 times, but ya keep sucking me back in! Anyone would think I’m Gillarding about going to bed!

  5. on the subject of speed, both Verizon and BT in the UK started off with slow speeds, to so argue the point made by Hash, can still have Fibre nation, but start of with slower speeds.

    If that was Hash’s only complaint.

  6. LOL you Labor/Greens supporters are too funny. I gotta tell some more Libs about this page, they should charge a fee or something to get this kind of entertainment. 😀

  7. @Hash Convicts/1509

    1. I’m no Labor/Green supporter.
    2. Your wrong, and thus you refer to us as Labor/Green supporters.
    3. As above, Verizon in USA and BT in UK started with slow speeds, so your whole argument is completely garbage..

  8. Hash@1500

    servers that can sustain 1000s of users at 100MB/sec

    Actually feasible with … Multicasting and/or a single sever virtualised over multiple hardware servers.

    And I’m not sure about your point anyway as the old client-server model is increasingly being sidelined by peer to peer so in effect every node on the system will be like a server so it will be at least several servers and perhaps dozens of servers being accessed in future. Given that ONE requested file (e.g., video streaming or conferencing) can reach 100Mbps on its own what happens when the rest of the household wants to do something?

    You’re really assuming traffic tomorrow will be about the same as today but it’s going to be an exponential increase.

  9. thanks for causing some facts about the clear superiority of Labors real NBN to come out in the open Hash Convits, even if that wasn’t your intention

  10. zoidlord
    Posted Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 2:30 am | Permalink

    on the subject of speed, both Verizon and BT in the UK started off with slow speeds, to so argue the point made by Hash, can still have Fibre nation, but start of with slower speeds.

    If that was Hash’s only complaint.
    ———

    No you just dont get it. Let me make this simple for you Labor people to understand.

    As we know Australia is not known for its warez…

    So we connect outside of Aus to other servers that do…

    These other countries provide a better source because they are cheaper and therefor can output high bandwidth at a cheaper cost.

    So we connect there, we all have different speeds, lets say for arguments sake I am on the Liberal connection.

    You are on the Labor connection.

    The servers overseas (Many of them) have the ability to send data at a huge transfer rate…

    However there are 1000 people over seas connecting there. In addition there are 1000 people in Australia connecting there… We are all demanding 100MB/sec…

    However the servers say NO. We can give you 40MB/sec because our servers cannot deal with this bandwidth output.

    So… my Labor critics.

    What server hosts do you know outside of Aus that can sustain a full 100MB/sec to the people of Australia, underload?

    You do not know, because there are not any. The best possible servers I have seen are Youtube, do you know many movies, games and other items that you can download from youtube? There isn’t any, so there for the Labor NBN will never deliver to any Australian resident at 100MB/sec from outside of Aus underload.

    If you cannot understand this concept, then give up understanding the NBN.

  11. Z- Hash seems to have no interest in acknowledging anything that challenges his point of view.

    I guess I could have been clearer, but clearly he isn’t interested in verifying context when a political stab is so much more enthralling to him than reasoned discussion.

  12. zoidlord

    I’m no Labor/Green supporter.
    ——

    What makes you think I care who you support? If I’m wrong, either way Saturday is a win for me. Although going out of your way to try and dismantle the Liberals NBN paints it clear that you are not a Liberal supporter.

  13. Right Hash, 4 servers serving 25Mb.

    4 members of a residence video conferencing within their network, be it work or play.

    Your stupid 100Mb point of a single server IGNORES this prospect. This isn’t a 30 second TV grab where you can just dump and run.

    Ignoring the likely scenario I provide will only expose your intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.

  14. Radguy

    Z- Hash seems to have no interest in acknowledging anything that challenges his point of view.

    I guess I could have been clearer, but clearly he isn’t interested in verifying context when a political stab is so much more enthralling to him than reasoned discussion.
    ——
    The same can be said for yourself and the others who have no concept of data output vs transfer speed. You only seem to have this perception because my thoughts clash with the political bias on this page. It is enjoyable though and a little amusing.

  15. I always hate posting near the end of the page as usually no one gets to see it.

    Ok, as a network professional let me state up front that there’s nothing faster than fibre, and it’s very unlikely that there ever will be in our lifetime (and physicists cannot transport photons instantaneously).

    Now some other points on the Coalition’s NBN proposal:
    • You may have noticed that Turnbull likes to talk about the latest copper technology, whether it’s vectoring or VFast. If he doesn’t know what technology will be deployed how can he determine the cost (and VFast will need a lot more nodes than VDSL2 with vectoring)
    • Turnbull’s claim that the NBN will cost $60B more than his FTTN network are proven as wrong: http://delimiter2.com.au/just-plain-wrong-full-refutation-coalitions-94bn-nbn-costing/ (behind a paywall unfortunately)
    • Turnbull assumes that Telstra will simply hand over the copper cable free of charge. If I was a Telstra shareholder I would be expecting the board to extract the maximum possible value from the Government and not just give it away. Personally, I would think they should ask an extra $10B for this. It’s not like the Turnbull and Abbott have any alternative.
    • Latency on fibre is significantly less than on copper DSL networks. For example, the next hop on my ADSL2+ connection (connection speed around 17Mbps) is 14ms round trip time (RTT) away. Our offices in Singapore have Internet connections on fibre. They are about 2ms RTT from our data centre in Singapore. You might say 14ms is not that much. But if your communicating with someone else also on DSL you’re now talking 28ms RTT, plus whatever is in between. By contrast our WAN connection between Perth and Singapore is around 52ms RTT, and between Perth and Adelaide is around 31ms RTT.

  16. @Hash Convicts/1517

    Once again, telling me you know more than I do about the NBN.

    This has to do with bandwidth costs, and the only way to make bandwidth costs cheaper, is by having faster connections.

    It’s that simple, more data being used, more competition, more bang for your buck.

    The same will happen with web hosts, cloud services, seed boxes, etc.

    The other interesting factor is that Fibre is cheaper than copper, in terms of per mbps costs.

    https://newmatilda.com/2013/05/23/asian-century-built-broadband

    “A recent study by Point Topic (subscriber-only) has found that fibre broadband is cheaper than both copper and cable connections for fast broadband. On a per megabit basis, the study found that the cost of a fibre service averages at US$1.14/Mbps. Cable came in at $1.53/Mbps and copper at US$5.57/Mbps.”

    Fibre: US$1.14Mbps
    Cable: US$1.53Mbps
    Copper: US$5.57Mbps

    Different technologies have a factor in costs to the end user.

    So what Liberal Party are selling means you will get less value than Labor’s NBN.

  17. Radguy

    Right Hash, 4 servers serving 25Mb.

    4 members of a residence video conferencing within their network, be it work or play.

    Your stupid 100Mb point of a single server IGNORES this prospect. This isn’t a 30 second TV grab where you can just dump and run.

    Ignoring the likely scenario I provide will only expose your intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.
    ———

    Your ignorance and ability to change this to suit yourself is amusing. At what point does what you have said have any relevance to the scenario I have described? You are talking about a local network, then suggesting somewhere I mentioned 1 server? Show me where I had mentioned 1 server? I didn’t did I. Your inability to grasp this concept and complete refusal to accept what I have outlined only further suggests that you have no answer for this simple problem.

  18. BC, I guess it is not strictly transportation, but given the only distinguishing feature of the two photons subject to this effect is location, it’s close enough to transportation to me.

  19. Hash@1517

    For this to be right (as in an effective rebuttal of the need for 100Mbps and greater bandwidth sooner rather than later) CISCO and all those professors of comms would have to be wrong. I’ll go with the latter I think.

    Just as it’s easy to “explain” why heavier than air flight is impossible until it’s done it’s easy to say we don’t need higher than 25Mbps download speeds until it turns out we actually do.

    Already Unis in Australia are starting to work on and teach GRID computing which is about virtual supercomputing over the internet. It will not be long before 100Mbps looks very slow indeed when GRID computer users are demanding internet links with a throughput approaching that of local computer bus. (The Matrix may not be so far away after all!)

  20. zoidlord

    Once again, telling me you know more than I do about the NBN.

    This has to do with bandwidth costs, and the only way to make bandwidth costs cheaper, is by having faster connections.
    ———
    Ahh so its back to costs while forgetting about the concept of server bandwidth output/distance and a customers ability to uphold 100MB/sec.

    Look, it doesn’t matter what you think, I think, anyone else here thinks, Labors NBN is irrelevant. The whole concept of explaining server output to you and the others here seems an impossible task as you are either incapable of understanding it, or ignoring it to suit your own political agenda.

    Sure, you can all stick with Labors NBN is the best and most affordable, however not everyone agrees, I am one of them, but at the end of the day, Liberals NBN will be the one being used. Take it, leave it, abuse it, cry about it, it really wont matter. 🙂

  21. How is it relevant if a server is outside Australia? And, if a company needs to deliver that much bandwidth they will probably use something like Amazon Web Services (as Netflix does) or Akamia (as Microsoft does for Windows Update).

  22. @Hash Convicts/1528

    *sigh*

    Providers are always going to adding more compacity, and the cheaper the bandwidth they get, the better we will be.

    That is my point, duh.

  23. [Don’t make me laugh, hit those ‘small’ servers with 1000s of 100MB/sec connections and it will act like it has the DDOS attack from hell]

    Then you go on to state a 40Mb connection to a server is the maximum.

    The point is that 2.5 servers delivering 40Mb can be catered for using NBN, but certainly not with your coalition’s cheapo option.

  24. Radguy Posted Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 3:00 am @ 1526

    BC, I guess it is not strictly transportation, but given the only distinguishing feature of the two photons subject to this effect is location, it’s close enough to transportation to me.

    It’s not the transportation stuff that I have a problem with. It’s the instantaneous bit. I’m pretty sure Einstein’s limitations still apply.

  25. David Mills

    For this to be right (as in an effective rebuttal of the need for 100Mbps and greater bandwidth sooner rather than later) CISCO and all those professors of comms would have to be wrong. I’ll go with the latter I think.

    Just as it’s easy to “explain” why heavier than air flight is impossible until it’s done it’s easy to say we don’t need higher than 25Mbps download speeds until it turns out we actually do.

    Already Unis in Australia are starting to work on and teach GRID computing which is about virtual supercomputing over the internet. It will not be long before 100Mbps looks very slow indeed when GRID computer users are demanding internet links with a throughput approaching that of local computer bus. (The Matrix may not be so far away after all!)
    ———–

    I don’t dispute the need for 100MB/sec or faster, what I am saying is there no need for it now while there are more important issues in this country to deal with. Internet is a luxury, my theory about server output vs achievable speed underload is correct, look it up if you wish to understand it.

    There is nothing stopping the Liberal NBN being upgraded, but this can be done when the country is out of the mess and debt that it is in. It is your prerogative to disagree just as it is mine to state my point. However, continuing to explain this bandwidth debacle that relates to the immediate future with the NBN seems pointless, I guess it depends on the crowd and political stand point of those you are speaking too.

  26. Hash, you are saying that insividual servers can’t typically feed you 100Mb, 40Mb is pushing it.

    Fine. No one has contested this.

    Three servers an feed 40 Mb each, easily max out a 100 Mb connection.

    Your argument revolved around ignoring this scenario.

    As someone with more than a cursory understanding of the topic, I find your criticisms of me idiotic.

  27. @Hash Convicts/1533

    You say that but Coalition own policy states 25-100Mbps.

    It’s just a matter of have vs have nots, vs people getting for 93% of the country.

    So, your argument is that, you rather spend more money in the short term, to provide a slower connection.

    Which makes no sense, when you could just limit the speed, as I said, to what Verizon in USA and BT in the UK does.

    Your argument doesn’t hold.

    Other than you been told to support Coalition NBN on the bases of ideology, rather than future proofing the network.

    The same failer as Telstra Copper Network.

    Your argument fails so many grounds.

  28. BC, why should they? The events can happen simultaneously, given that there is no traveling going on. No different conceptually to waving two flags at the same time.

  29. Hash Convicts Posted Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 3:09 am @ 1533

    I don’t dispute the need for 100MB/sec or faster, what I am saying is there no need for it now while there are more important issues in this country to deal with. Internet is a luxury, my theory about server output vs achievable speed underload is correct, look it up if you wish to understand it.

    It will take years to build a NBN, regardless of whether it’s FTTH or FTTN. If you wait until it’s needed you’re too late.

    There is nothing stopping the Liberal NBN being upgraded, but this can be done when the country is out of the mess and debt that it is in. It is your prerogative to disagree just as it is mine to state my point. However, continuing to explain this bandwidth debacle that relates to the immediate future with the NBN seems pointless, I guess it depends on the crowd and political stand point of those you are speaking too.

    Our country is not in a mess and does not have a debt problem. You don’t need to worry about the “budget emergency” now that Tony Abbott has adopted Labor’s economic and fiscal policy.
    As for upgrading a FTTN network to a FTTH network, that will cost more long term. It’s cheaper to do it right the first time, especially given the degraded state of the copper network and the remediation cost of bringing it up to scratch.

    FTTN networks are more cost effective in high density environments where you can ammortise the cost of each node over a large number of connections. That’s why VDSL has been deployed in apartments. However in low density housing, like Australia’s suburbs, it’s less cost effective because each node cannot service as many users (remembering that nodes are positioned to be within x metres distance of each customer, not to service x number of customers). So an area with 200 people per km2 will need as many nodes as one with 1000 people per km2.

  30. @Radguy/1534

    If 40Mbps is pushing it, then hash must be using a crappy server host… A good company like SoftLayer has something like nearly 200,000 servers for data centers.

    http://www.softlayer.com/about/datacenters

    Hash really needs to get out that small spot, and look at the larger picture, he’s over-thinking and over complicating the situation.

  31. Hash, I point you to my comment @1475 regarding affordability. You are spruiking a false claim that the NBN is unaffordable compared to fraudband. I think NBN would work out cheaper in the long run. The transition step plus the inherent unreliability of copper are factors that don’t need to be considered for NBN. How much grief will the copper network give us?

    The cost difference might as well be negligible, particularly when I expect that you derived the $90 per month figure from the $90B+ coalition projection. The value difference is substantial.

  32. Radguy Posted Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 3:14 am @ 1536

    BC, why should they? The events can happen simultaneously, given that there is no traveling going on. No different conceptually to waving two flags at the same time.

    Ok, if two particles are entangled then when one the quantum state of one particle is measured the other particle instantaneously takes on the appropriately correlated value. However, I don’t agree that anything is transported (except perhaps information).

    However, quantum teleportation is still subject to speed of light limits. It’s not instantaneous.

    We are now well beyond my expertise in physics. I’ll leave it to the more knowledgeable to debate further.

    Wikipedia entries on the topics:
    Quantum entanglement
    Quantum teleportation

  33. Z- I agree.

    I find a common style which can be described as trying to make the last comment deliberately off topic and irrelevantly dismissive. We might have a word for it, but I think this tactic deserves its own term.

  34. 1541 not directed at you BC.

    I guess you’re right. I still think that in theory it cold be done but obviously not in the way it is done now.

  35. B.C.

    Our country is not in a mess and does not have a debt problem.
    ——-
    Your post basically lost all credibility at at that point. As for you whinging left Labor/Greens supporters. Your inability to understand server output vs bandwidth ability based on your political agenda is hilarious. Regardless of how simple this is explained to you, you still have no idea and are stuck at the point of not understanding that there is not one server host that has the capacity to output to 1000s of people at 100MB/sec.

    So here it is, name one host in the world that will give 1000s of users on 100MB/sec enough bandwidth to sustain their connections at maximum speed under load and not fail to sustain it underload and ongoing. Just one.

  36. Yes because everyone on the internet is doing the same thing at the same time.

    And server capability today will always remain the same.

    And multicast is a myth.

  37. I still see there is no coalition supporter is confident of winning saturday

    i will be back latger on, off to cofts harbour for the day

  38. Section 2 . . .

    Alan Moir has Popeye giving us a discourse on global politics.
    http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/alan-moir-20090907-fdxk.html
    OH DEAR!!! David Rowe uses Homer for this one. Just check out the sirens!
    http://www.afr.com/p/national/cartoon_gallery_david_rowe_1g8WHy9urgOIQrWQ0IrkdO
    David Pope on Political Climate Change. Look for the lizard.
    http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/david-pope-20120214-1t3j0.html
    Ron Tandberg does not like Abbott’s Direct Action plan.
    http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/ron-tandberg-20090910-fixc.html

Comments Page 31 of 32
1 30 31 32

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *