• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Impmk2

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2,378 profile views
  1. Yep, common problem no one talks about. I've had badly bleeding nipples after a couple hour jog before. It was pretty embarrassing (blood soaked through my shirt) and painful. Now I shave my chest (less hair less friction) and put a strip of strapping tape over each nipple before I go for long runs. Same type of tape you'd buy to strap a muscle strain or support a joint. Oh and the other advantage to not having chest hair , you don't rip it off when you rip off the tape.
  2. Thanks guys! It was mentally the hardest run I've ever done. I wasn't familiar with the course and 7-14km were largely up a very gentle slope. So gentle I didn't realise I was running uphill. Almost gave up and walked at 10km I got so discouraged with the precious seconds I was losing. Wasn't until the course looped back on itself at 14km and I started running back down to the finish that I figured out what was going on, and then had to summon the energy to lift and make up the time I'd lost. Have never felt so utterly destroyed after a race. @3CityApache you'll get there! If I recall your 5km time isn't too dissimilar to mine (currently 22:13, though I haven't raced a 5km in a month or so). I'd be shocked if you couldn't easily run a PB now.
  3. Ran my 4th (and final) half marathon for the year today. Came home in a time of 1:39:25 (4:42mins/km), just inside my target time of 1:40. That means I've knocked about 20mins off from my first half in April to now. Don't post here much (mostly lurk and get motivation from reading about you guys) but I'm pretty happy with that result and thought I'd share. Thinking about tackling the full 42.2 next year, but going to give myself a bit of a break and reduce the weekly kms over summer (in Aus).
  4. Ahhh that makes sense, thanks! I hadn't seen any articles on what the government was trying to argue.
  5. Not a lawyer, but would be very surprised if the high court decides the postal survey meets the "urgent" and "unforeseen" test for the funding. Question is where the government goes next in the event the court finds it can't do it. Hopefully it's enough to give them a kick in the ass and just allow a free vote, so it isn't constantly coming up in the lead up to the next election.
  6. I wouldn't be so sure. Labor's stance has simply be to ignore questions on the issue as it relates to their members and refuse to release any info. Looks like they're just hoping the Libs aren't willing to refer them to the high court and open a tit-for-tat pandora's box of citizenship issues. Who knows where that'd end, and who'd be in power at the end of it.
  7. The nothing would also include not defunding the EPA and state department. And the US wouldn't be set to pull out of Paris. And then repubs would just be back to pushing through pointless Obamacare repeals with the cover of the veto. It'd look pretty similar to a Clinton presidency on the domestic front imo. Foreign policy would probably be more isolationist than Trump (or a hypothetical Clinton admin). No bombing Syria. Less sabre rattling with North Korea. Probably still would've pulled out of the TPP.
  8. The reasons against doing this are: 1) A divisive campaign which will see vitriol thrown both ways. Hooray for weeks of TV ads attacking each other. 2) Completely unnecessary cost. 3) This whole thing, as I'd previously said is purely due to internal Liberal party politics. It was just a convenient way for Abbott to kick the ball down the road past the 2016 election. The numbers are there, it will pass if put up to a vote on the floor of the parliament. But the right wing had a hissy fit so they need to cover their asses.
  9. The pollies cannot change the constitution through act of parliament. That can only be done through referendum. But marriage isn't an issue that needs to have anything to do with the constitution at all, they can simply change the law that Howard put in place in 2004 (with no plebiscite) defining marriage as man and woman at any time they choose. But the Libs won't allow the issue to come up for a vote until they have their glorified opinion poll. As Yukle points out, and I hadn't even considered, I guess you could use a referendum to put an entirely new section into the constitution about marriage. That'd be politically even more fraught as you'd get push back from both sides of the debate. I seriously doubt the right would allow a vote to potentially enshrine gay marriage in the constitution. Election polling in the US and the rest of the world is far harder than in Australia because of voluntary voting, so the pollsters have to guess at who is actually going to turn up and bother to vote. That's unlike here where at the last federal election the polls were off by less than 1% for the major parties. There'd have to be something really really weird going on to have a 40% polling error, which is roughly the lead gay marriage enjoys according to the polls (roughly 70%-30% for / against). Hell, even the recent French election, which had a huge polling error (far larger than the US & Trump - Macron got about 10% more of the vote than the polls predicted) wouldn't come close.
  10. Plebiscites by definition under Australian law are non-binding. A binding plebiscite is a referendum, which can only be used to settle constitutional matters, which marriage is not one of. This whole thing is an exercise in hand balling internal liberal party politics on to the Australian people, at a cost of $120 million. It's pure stupidity.
  11. I don't think this is true and doesn't even make much sense, especially when the alternative is a pencil which there's this fancy new fangled invention called an eraser that's specifically designed to remove pencil marks. The real reason pencils are generally used (according to a news article on the issue I read a while ago) is purely practical, they're cheap, and they don't dry out if you store them for years between elections. But in both Australia and the UK, and I'd imagine elsewhere, a vote in pen is just as legally valid as a vote in pencil, you just have to bring your own. Sorry to continue with the commonwealth nations derail, but again this simply isn't the case. Pre-2016 you could always vote by putting a 1 in your party of preference and nothing else. Now you have to number 1-6 in order of preference. You only ever ended up numbering 100+ if you were feeling particually masochistic and voted below the line. But even there now you only need to number up to 12.
  12. So it turns out insulting and threatening senators when you have the slimmest of majorities is a bad idea. Who knew?
  13. One of the guys teaching my Philosophy class was 'one of those' atheists, who put me off a bit by constantly using bible passages for his examples of logical fallacies (and I'm not at all religious myself). On the plus side it clued me in to how my own non-belief in God might come across badly to others if I got preachy about it. On the other hand one of my microbiology lecturers ranted and raved about kids these days and socialists any opportunity he got.
  14. The Greens under Di Natale seem far more willing to compromise to get an okay deal across the line, rather than hold out for a perfect piece of legislation, or try to just get ideological point scoring in. I much prefer them to the Greens who refused to back an increase in the petrol excise under Milne. As an aside, that the Government (well, their backbench) is comfortable cutting a deal with One Nation, but shies from even the possibility of a deal with the Greens does not bode well. When did those corrupt, incompetent, xenophobic nutbags become normalized?
  15. lol! That's awesome if it holds up.