GREENS SENATOR. YAMATJI NOONGAR WOMAN. MUM. Dorinda Cox is a Yamatji-Noongar woman with a strong record of working for social justice in her community; locally, globally and nationally. Dorinda is the mother of two daughters and small business owner. Dorinda has over 20 years’ experience working in government and non-government sectors and has made significant contributions to policy and advocacy in the areas of domestic violence, child protection and Aboriginal Justice.
..to be followed at some point in the future by a public discussion about health, exercise, training, pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary and post school adult education programs enhancing diet, lifestyle, mental acuity and social skills. Yep.
Meanwhile we’ll stick with the stolid but maximum Fun-&-Profit Ayn Rand* Alan Greenspan* Milton Friedman passive consumer-society business of simultaneously screwing environment, culture and PEOPLE particularly the urban disposessed everywhere
– see our terrific work at Burrup Peninsula carting away artefacts to stick in a shed AND enable the mass production of chemical urea fertiliser that not only dramatically carbonises the atmosphere during its production over a 20-year period BUT IS LETHALLY ECOLOGICALLY TOXIC TO ALL LIFE FORMS ON THE GROUND IT’S JUST THAT YOU CAN’T SEE IT WITH YOUR EYES SO LIKE THE COMPLETE MUSK-SCIENCE SOLOPSIST-OBJECTIVIST SUCKER YOU MAY BE YOU PROBABLY RECKON IT’S EXCELLENT YEH? –
to functional economy and civil society as well as on behalf of the gangsterism envisaged in Rand’s scatterbrained “The Citadel.”
**founders, along with a pop-psychologist called Nathaniel Branden, of The Objecivists, Manhattan, 1950s
Can you guarantee no person will go without medicine because of this plan and can you guarantee no pharmacy will have to close because of this plan?
Butler:
This will not impact the supply and demand of these 300 medicines over a period of time. We have deliberately decided to phase in these arrangements over the course of this year and next year so pharmacists are able to change their itinerary arrangements.
It is important to stress that not every patient on these medicines is going to rock up to their pharmacy with a new 60 day script at the same time. Patients will come off their existing scripts at different times.
They will have to consult with their GPs about whether they qualify for the 60 day dispensing arrangements and there are strong arrangements we have in place, we pay wholesalers to have in place to ensure every pharmacist can have supply delivered to them within 24 hours.
I caution people against taking advice from the pharmacy lobby group about supply arrangements that are monitored very closely by our medicines authorities.
Reporter:
The Pharmacy Guild is saying of the 300 medicines that are part of the changes, about 40% have shortages at the moment, and it is all well and good to double the amount of prescriptions for patients but double of nothing is still nothing. What is being done to ensure that these medicines that are part of the changes have adequate supplies and also particularly for regional and rural pharmacies where their supplies might not be as much as the city counterparts?
Taking questions, Butler is pushing back against the pharmacy lobby’s “scare campaign” that this policy could worsen medicine shortages.
Butler:
Firstly, I advise people to take advice around medicine supply and shortages from our medicines authorities rather than the pharmacy lobby group. The actual truth is of the 325 medicines that I have announced today, only 7 of them are experiencing supply shortages. Shortages which are reflected across the world and are a product of the impact of Covid supply lines.
…This is not going to change the number of tablets dispensed in a given period of time. It is simply going to mean that people can get two boxes at a time, instead of having to get one box and come back twice as often. We have very strong arrangements for supply from wholesalers in this country, wholesalers are funded by taxpayers to ensure that any pharmacist that is dealing with supply shortages will have that supply delivered within 24 hours anywhere in this country, whether you are a pharmacy in the city or a pharmacy in regional and rural Australia.
I would caution against some of the scare campaigns being put by the pharmacy lobby group.
Minister for Health and Aged Care. Member for Hindmarsh. Authorised by M. Butler, 21 Commercial Road, Port Adelaide SA 5015.
John Blundell independent economics South Australia with thanks as ever to our thoughtful readers..
Albanese defends voice over High Court concerns/ Story by Andrew Brown and Tess Ikonomou AAP 19/4/2023
Anthony Albanese has defended the wording of the proposed Indigenous voice
It comes as traditional owners from north Queensland and the Torres Strait give evidence to a parliamentary inquiry looking at the constitutional change.
The prime minister said the prospect of cases being brought before the courts because of the wording had been shot down by Australia’s top constitutional law experts.
“This is a legally sound proposition. It makes it very clear that parliament is in charge,” he told 2SM Sydney on Wednesday.
“There’s no obligation and there’s certainly not an obligation on the government to agree to (action recommended by) the voice. There is the provision for the voice to be heard, for at least the views to be put.”
Australians will vote in the referendum on the voice between October and December, pending the passing of legislation through parliament by the end of June.
The Liberal Party says the government should instead legislate a local and regional voice process, while the constitutional change should be kept to a simple recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
The party position led to ‘yes’ proponent Julian Leeser quitting the frontbench and Liberal leader Peter Dutton appointing Northern Territory senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price – a strong advocate for the ‘no’ case – in his place.
Related video: The Voice to Parliament ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ camps are stepping up their campaigns today, with new events and adverts being launched (Dailymotion)
“Jacinta Price is one of the strongest, most coherent cut-through voices in the country,” Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said in Adelaide.
“You’ve got a proposal for a voice, which is a Canberra-based voice, it’s the voice of the elites and it’s not going to help Indigenous people on the ground.”
Senator Price said the voice would lock-in the idea of Indigenous disadvantage in the constitution.
“Ultimately, what the end goal would be is to not have those sorts of special measures – that we would, in fact, treat everyone equally,” she told Sky News.
“If one day my role would become redundant, that would actually be a good thing.”
Former Liberal frontbencher Karen Andrews said the party was being distracted by the voice campaign.
Ms Andrews said while the voice was an important issue, the opposition also needed to look at other areas.
“We need to deal with the issue of constitutional recognition, but we need to focus on all Australians and what they are looking for and that is leadership, and that is support for the issues that they face every single day,” she told ABC Radio on Wednesday.
Woodside Energy chief executive Meg O’Neill said the energy giant backed the ‘yes’ campaign.
“In my view, this would be an important step forward in reconciliation, a genuine opportunity to bring Australians together,” she told the National Press Club in a speech.
“We are on a journey in our relations with First Nations people. We haven’t always gotten it right.”
..being articles on two titans of enlightenment-era science, “special subject Chemistry” essentially – James Lovelock and Eunice Newton Foote (1819 – 1888) – as we now grasp that ecology, molecular biology, atmospheric science, to name but three in as many as FIFTEEN developing fields of hard (that is to say geo-physical & thermodynamic) #science, are not siloed, separate studies but interdependent and co-determinate in causation, such that any technical or engineering management strategies that may be set in train to address what are now the clearly barely if at all and if ever – some say 350 years because of the persistence of carbon dioxide in atmosphere – reversible results of continuing to pump forty billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to air EACH YEAR, only one of say 7 – 10 other gases dangerous to ALL the dynamically intertwined forms of (tropospheric) life on earth, which popular newsmedia rarely if at all discuss or deign to share with their readers, listeners or viewers – including nitric oxide from human industrially generated nitrous oxide and other hydrocarbon emissions (surely from any intense heat source including nuclear energy production, I wonder) “which will remain the largest threat in the 21st century to the protective ozone layer” (so reports the US NOAA and EPA, though not at all clearly the #oil- & #gas-corporations corrupted & nonsensised Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment & Water – though to its credit it does mention recent ozone hole emergence over the Arctic as well as alarming, prospectively apocalyptic, enlargement over the Antarctic between the stratosphere and the band of the mesosphere closest to earth, ie at 15 – 40 kilometres above us – which popular newsmedia NEVER dares air to their users for fear of offending the #FossilFuels corporations, banks, financiers, accountancy firms and corporate law-background ‘cyborg’ or droning ‘hubot’ publicist/ podcast wa…rs who provide hundreds of millions in sponsorship to each of the three major Australian political parties as quid pro quo (ha, ha: it is of course ‘in return for..’) BILLIONS in subsidies, rebates and tax holidays, who until very recently imagined they had a permanent revolving-doors stranglehold on federal and State/ Territory government in what is becoming an increasingly impoverished client-state and run-down military base of the United States of America for goodness’ sake.
..sinister and righteous, builders and destroyers, mentally robust working people and the neurocognitively impaired or raving, young people and the billionaires, captive populations around die welt**
..the Dialectics of the Damned, Green Economist global-distribution faxed newsletter 1994 Australia
Here “The Objectivists” Rand, Greenspan, Branden, Manhattan Island 1950’s libert-Aryan mechanomporphic Madison Avenue Edward Bernays Goldman Sachs Blackrock Koch Brothers Klaus Schwab George Soros Gutenberg Galaxy @wef monster-matrix mechanomorphic clockwork universewith endless inane vapid and diseducational strictly evidence-based deracinated logical positivist literally maddening searcheswith endless inane vapid and diseducational strictly evidence-based deracinated logical positivist literally maddening searches with endless inane vapid and diseducational strictly evidence-based deracinated logical positivist literally maddening searches with endless inane vapid and diseducational strictly evidence-based deracinated logical-positivist literally maddening searches.
..with due acknowledgement to William Heath Robinson (May 1872 – September 1944), an English cartoonist, illustrator and artist, best known for drawings of whimsically elaborate machines to achieve simple objectives.
**increasingly morbid due to bad diet and an array of lifestyle problems that have only been exacerbated by post January 2020 #SARSCoV2 infections and now ‘SAND’ or ‘Long Covid’ which as a career public health watcher i find highly problematical, not just in terms of say #NDIS funding and public hospital overloading and loss of staffing but with regard to the functionality of households and child raisers, and even in terms of a discernibly growing public mood of anger and hurt – to which in all fairness it must be added a federal government that is distracted by a certain band of cultural issues but apparently bored by other cutural and lifestyle issues, in particular those pressing upon and even tearing apart the households of working people, especially women and single young mothers, among those millions of us on low and middle incomes – urging the public to get counselling or go visit a general practitioner of medicine for goodness’ sake – and is a one-trick neoliberal pony with respect to key policies across the board like housing, industry, transport, employment, education, household savings, family life, agriculture, disabled people’s support services, rivers, mental health, LOCAL community development and science education to name but a handful of grievously misconceived and largely private-sector business-profit orientated policy development areas largely impelled and shaped by late 19th century Victorian English aristoi establishment religious or oppositional social darwinist gibberisch.. either calling in pompous fusty experts way past their use-bys in social policy, science, technology or ANY public policy including whatever it was they were once famous for, amongst the social toffs, the ABC, Royalty (what is that?), CJ Dennis’s Glugs of Gosh^, newsmedia oinks, the political class, or, wait for it.. what are called today #socialmedia influencers, no? “Here, have a million bucks, man.” South Australia 2023.. or proudly announcing yet another taxation. derivatives & futures market-geared fund for those old rich white folks to play in.
1. Lovelock
‘The climate science maverick believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam. So what would he do?’
In 1965 executives at Shell wanted to know what the world would look like in the year 2000. They consulted a range of experts, who speculated about fusion-powered hovercrafts and “all sorts of fanciful technological stuff”. When the oil company asked the scientist James Lovelock, he predicted that the main problem in 2000 would be the environment. “It will be worsening then to such an extent that it will seriously affect their business,” he said.
“And of course,” Lovelock says, with a smile 43 years later, “that’s almost exactly what’s happened.”
Lovelock has been dispensing predictions from his one-man laboratory in an old mill in Cornwall since the mid-1960s, the consistent accuracy of which have earned him a reputation as one of Britain’s most respected – if maverick – independent scientists. Working alone since the age of 40, he invented a device that detected CFCs, which helped detect the growing hole in the ozone layer, and introduced the Gaia hypothesis, a revolutionary theory that the Earth is a self-regulating super-organism. Initially ridiculed by many scientists as new age nonsense, today that theory forms the basis of almost all climate science.
For decades, his advocacy of nuclear power appalled fellow environmentalists – but recently increasing numbers of them have come around to his way of thinking. His latest book, The Revenge of Gaia, predicts that by 2020 extreme weather will be the norm, causing global devastation; that by 2040 much of Europe will be Saharan; and parts of London will be underwater. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report deploys less dramatic language – but its calculations aren’t a million miles away from his.
As with most people, my panic about climate change is equalled only by my confusion over what I ought to do about it. A meeting with Lovelock therefore feels a little like an audience with a prophet. Buried down a winding track through wild woodland, in an office full of books and papers and contraptions involving dials and wires, the 88-year-old presents his thoughts with a quiet, unshakable conviction that can be unnerving. More alarming even than his apocalyptic climate predictions is his utter certainty that almost everything we’re trying to do about it is wrong.
On the day we meet, the Daily Mail has launched a campaign to rid Britain of plastic shopping bags. The initiative sits comfortably within the current canon of eco ideas, next to ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on – all of which are premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won’t make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.
“It’s just too late for it,” he says. “Perhaps if we’d gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don’t have time. All these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. I get an awful lot of people coming to me saying you can’t say that, because it gives us nothing to do. I say on the contrary, it gives us an immense amount to do. Just not the kinds of things you want to do.”
He dismisses eco ideas briskly, one by one. “Carbon offsetting? I wouldn’t dream of it. It’s just a joke. To pay money to plant trees, to think you’re offsetting the carbon? You’re probably making matters worse. You’re far better off giving to the charity Cool Earth, which gives the money to the native peoples to not take down their forests.”
Do he and his wife try to limit the number of flights they take? “No we don’t. Because we can’t.” And recycling, he adds, is “almost certainly a waste of time and energy”, while having a “green lifestyle” amounts to little more than “ostentatious grand gestures”. He distrusts the notion of ethical consumption. “Because always, in the end, it turns out to be a scam … or if it wasn’t one in the beginning, it becomes one.”
Somewhat unexpectedly, Lovelock concedes that the Mail’s plastic bag campaign seems, “on the face of it, a good thing”. But it transpires that this is largely a tactical response; he regards it as merely more rearrangement of Titanic deckchairs, “but I’ve learnt there’s no point in causing a quarrel over everything”. He saves his thunder for what he considers the emptiest false promise of all – renewable energy.
“You’re never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours,” he says. “Windmills! Oh no. No way of doing it. You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them. Waste of time.”
This is all delivered with an air of benign wonder at the intractable stupidity of people. “I see it with everybody. People just want to go on doing what they’re doing. They want business as usual. They say, ‘Oh yes, there’s going to be a problem up ahead,’ but they don’t want to change anything.”
Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.
Nuclear power, he argues, can solve our energy problem – the bigger challenge will be food. “Maybe they’ll synthesise food. I don’t know. Synthesising food is not some mad visionary idea; you can buy it in Tesco’s, in the form of Quorn. It’s not that good, but people buy it. You can live on it.” But he fears we won’t invent the necessary technologies in time, and expects “about 80%” of the world’s population to be wiped out by 2100. Prophets have been foretelling Armageddon since time began, he says. “But this is the real thing.”
Faced with two versions of the future – Kyoto’s preventative action and Lovelock’s apocalypse – who are we to believe? Some critics have suggested Lovelock’s readiness to concede the fight against climate change owes more to old age than science: “People who say that about me haven’t reached my age,” he says laughing.
But when I ask if he attributes the conflicting predictions to differences in scientific understanding or personality, he says: “Personality.”
There’s more than a hint of the controversialist in his work, and it seems an unlikely coincidence that Lovelock became convinced of the irreversibility of climate change in 2004, at the very point when the international consensus was coming round to the need for urgent action. Aren’t his theories at least partly driven by a fondness for heresy?
“Not a bit! Not a bit! All I want is a quiet life! But I can’t help noticing when things happen, when you go out and find something. People don’t like it because it upsets their ideas.”
But the suspicion seems confirmed when I ask if he’s found it rewarding to see many of his climate change warnings endorsed by the IPCC. “Oh no! In fact, I’m writing another book now, I’m about a third of the way into it, to try and take the next steps ahead.”
Interviewers often remark upon the discrepancy between Lovelock’s predictions of doom, and his good humour. “Well I’m cheerful!” he says, smiling. “I’m an optimist. It’s going to happen.”
Humanity is in a period exactly like 1938-9, he explains, when “we all knew something terrible was going to happen, but didn’t know what to do about it”. But once the second world war was under way, “everyone got excited, they loved the things they could do, it was one long holiday … so when I think of the impending crisis now, I think in those terms. A sense of purpose – that’s what people want.”
At moments I wonder about Lovelock’s credentials as a prophet. Sometimes he seems less clear-eyed with scientific vision than disposed to see the version of the future his prejudices are looking for. A socialist as a young man, he now favours market forces, and it’s not clear whether his politics are the child or the father of his science. His hostility to renewable energy, for example, gets expressed in strikingly Eurosceptic terms of irritation with subsidies and bureaucrats. But then, when he talks about the Earth – or Gaia – it is in the purest scientific terms all.
“There have been seven disasters since humans came on the earth, very similar to the one that’s just about to happen. I think these events keep separating the wheat from the chaff. And eventually we’ll have a human on the planet that really does understand it and can live with it properly. That’s the source of my optimism.”
What would Lovelock do now, I ask, if he were me? He smiles and says: “Enjoy life while you can. Because if you’re lucky it’s going to be 20 years before it hits the fan.”
With many thanks to The Guardian and interviewer Decca Aitkenhead
2. Foote
Eunice Newton Foote (1819 – 1888) was an american scientist, inventor and women’s rights campaigner. She was the first scientist to conclude that certain gases warmed when exposed to sunlight, and that rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels would change atmospheric temperature and could affect climate. Born in Connecticut, Foote was raised in New York at the centre of social and political movements of her day, such as the abolition of slavery, anti-alcohol activism and women’s rights. She attended the Troy Female Seminary and the Rensselaer School from age seventeen to nineteen, gaining a broad education in scientific theory and practice.
I love the introductory paragraph I chose to print here because it’s a red-hot topical 🚀-up-the-arse for all those men and women so derelict in their scientific and moral senses as to confine the study of our looming man-made global heating apocalypse to chemistry (or to grievously – frankly horrifically – outdated sunscreen or umbrellas WMO television-report meteorology), comprehensively isolated from the enquiring adult liberal education imperatives of environment, society and human cultures and with only ever the vaguest nod to physics or the new atmospheric science by whose agency and impacts our great grandchildren will live or die.
Thanks to Wikipedia, whose entries here provided a comprehensive report on the grievously disturbing responses, both social as well as technical – both sexist (misogynistic) and in fact ideologically Luddite & maliciously obfuscatory – responses of the ‘scientific’ pompous asses and publishers of Eunice Newton Foote’s day.
It is manifestly science as polemic, rhetoric and Saganian bamboozle that has got humanity where it is and INSANELY, PSYCHOTICALLY and MALICIOUSLY continues to, and indeed accelerates the multi-billion dollar entirely PUBLICLY funded pace of utterly disastrous and irrational geo-engineering, the remake of living ecology as an array of YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE consumer- but primarily wealthy investor- fantastically and delsionallly conceived #Econometrics or public realtions and advertising products AND the unable-to-be-scaled-up technical nonsense of capturing carbon dioxide/ monoxide generated by the combustion of fossil fuels vi ignition in an oxygen-feed in containers or deep holes in the ground (a processed powered by – you might never guess – in a heroic effort to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics or at least hoodwink 2 or 3 billion eager secondary-school Google Bard searchers – burning fossil fuel (goodness, yet another totalitarian self-fulfilling prophecy feedback loop dumbdown ploy! This time it’s the automatic writing, or Spirit-writing or “psychography” of artificial “intelligence” algorithms – the Chat GPT extravaganza!
Hands-up all of you who think it’s a really good idea seeing we’ve already managed to irreversibly trash the global environment, to proceed immediately with the demolition of human society after Thatcher & Merkel (both chemists, students will note) AND human culture. Marketise everything man. Are you lazy or a grass-skirt person who smokes stuff?
“Meet the woman who first identified the greenhouse effect”
by Megan Darby
Published 02/09/2016
Eunice Foote demonstrated the heat-trapping properties of carbon dioxide at a scientific conference in 1856, newly digitised records show
Irish physicist John Tyndall is commonly credited with discovering the greenhouse effect, which underpins the science of climate change.
Starting in 1859, he published a series of studies on the way greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide trapped heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.
A recently digitised copy of The American Journal of Science and Arts suggests a woman beat him to it, however.
It includes a presentation by Eunice Foote to a top US science conference in 1856. She describes filling glass jars with water vapour, carbon dioxide and air, and comparing how much they heated up in the sun.
“The highest effect of the sun’s rays I have found to be in carbonic acid gas,” she writes, using the contemporary term for carbon dioxide.
“The receiver containing the gas became itself much heated – very sensibly more so than the other – and on being removed, it was many times as long in cooling.”
She goes on to speculate that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air could influence global temperatures.
“An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature; and if as some suppose, at one period of its history the air had mixed with it a larger proportion than at present, an increased temperature from its own action as well as from increased weight must have necessarily resulted.”
Climate scientist and communicator Katharine Hayhoe found Foote’s contribution after a colleague asked why there were no women in the history of the discipline.
Her interest piqued, Hayhoe has approached local historians and Foote’s descendents through a family history website to try and find a picture of her or more information.
Foote’s results were not definitive, Hayhoe says, with too many uncontrolled factors in the experiment. She could not have anticipated that atmospheric CO2 levels would rise from 290 parts per million at the time to 400ppm, prompting a global crisis.
Still, her hypothesis was prescient and a version of her experiment is used to teach high school children today.
“There was a bit of luck involved,” says Hayhoe, “but I think it is amazing that she connected the dots and came to a conclusion that subsequent science has proved to be correct.”
Hayhoe is not the first to resurrect Foote’s legacy. In 2011, independent researcher Raymond Sorensen got an article published in the journal AAPG Search and Discovery.
He relied on an observer’s account of Foote’s presentation, not having access to her own words. The report, by a David Wells in the Annual of Scientific Discovery for 1856, hints at how unusual it was for a woman to appear at such a gathering.
It states: “Prof. Henry then read a paper by Mrs. Eunice Foote, prefacing it with a few words, to the effect that science was of no country and of no sex. The sphere of woman embraces not only the beautiful and the useful, but the true.”
Eunice Foote, born Newton, would have been unlikely to get the opportunity without the support of her husband, Elisha Foote. Judging by the related paper Elisha presented at the same conference, it seems the married couple worked together.
They feature in The Road to Seneca Falls, an account of the women’s rights movement of the time. Elisha was a judge specialising in patent law and patented several inventions himself, according to author Judith Wellman, including a skate, drying machine and a reaping and binding machine. Eunice patented a “filling for soles of boots and shoes” in 1860.
Tyndall does not appear to have heard of Foote’s work when he started on a similar line of inquiry. His publications are more extensive and include accurate quantification of how much different gases absorbed infrared radiation – “radiant heat” – from the sun.
“With the exception of the celebrated memoir of M. Pouillet on Solar Radiation through the atmosphere, nothing, so far as I am aware, has been published on the transmission of radiant heat through gaseous bodies,” he wrote when presenting his initial results to the Royal Society of London in 1859, as cited by Sorensen.
“With regard to the action of other gases upon heat, we are not, so far as I am aware, possessed of a single experiment.”
It can be hard to assess claims of priority in science, says Sorensen, particularly if work is not in the public domain.
But he adds: “It is clear that Eunice Foote deserves credit for being an innovator on the topic of CO2 and its potential impact on global climate warming.”
Billionaire-🙈🙊🙉🐒s with Olivettis 