As I said to te Herald a few weeks back "Its bad enough that they changed their logo to something resembling a cat's rear end and now, to compound that, changed their name to Kraps spelt backwards. Do people actually get paid to be this stupid?."
Anyhoo, a few tips for those wanting to improve their TV experience.
For quite a few years now I have been using NPVR as my DVR though a comp plugged into the TV by HDMI and using Comskip to remove ads.
Recently I have rediscovered XBMC as a way of getting good on-line content. Anyone watch The Daily Show last night, I didn't think so...
XBMC actually stands for Xbox media centre but now you can use it through a comp/laptop instead.
So have a follow of those links and have fun.
However, this particular scandal is of lesser significance than the corpulent cavortings of the crack cocaine-imbibing Toronto mayor Rob Ford,
Oh come on. The guy had a legitimate excuse for smoking crack with gang bangers, he was drunk at the time.
Ahh, Conservatives, “Looking Backwards for a Better Future”.
Or how about “Making Tomorrow Just Like Yesterday”?
I have an irrational distrust of a man with two first names anyway but honestly, how can you repeal a law that was repealed? surely that’s reinstatement?
As has been said by many and not listened to by the vociferous few, THERE IS NO ANTI SMACKING LAW, it was just taking away the right to smack your kids up, in a reasonable manner of course.
Can’t we just smack Colin Craig or is that just not OK?
Alcohol and cannabis are huge impairments, and when you overlay them on any driver the outcomes are going to be worse.
Unless, that is, your main aim is to reduce the number of bad drivers on the road and are prepared to accept collateral damage. (playing the fool of course)
I think we could increase the depth of driver education and testing and improve the overall standard of competence, our driving licences are as easy to get as a cold in this country.
Of course alcohol and drugs impair all kinds of things, that's why we do it, add to that incompetent drivers and you have the situation we find ourselves in now.
And what about the severity of the accidents in which stoned drivers are involved? Are we talking injury?
Shouldn't really be factored in, an accident is always due to somebody not paying attention or pushing the limits of either their skill or the design capability of their vehicle. I have to disagree with George...
Rarely is bad driving people who are pushing those limits deliberately.
Unfortunately this is more often than not the case (I do know his point was about deliberately taking drugs or drinking alcohol but even they don't say "I'm going to get out of it so I can have a car accident"
Police are doing something about it though, they are repainting their cars and reducing their tolerance The reduced tolerance to over limit drivers, reduced from 10% to 5% seems to be working but I have to question its legality. At present the accuracy of speedometers for a vehicle are "within 10%" so it could be an interesting case if you could argue that your "speedo" said 100 but the cops say 110, what would be the outcome of that?.
If the tests are relevant to driving, is it possible that people who suck at that sober shouldn’t be driving even when sober?
Indeed. Also the Sausage argument. I wonder if the correlation of the number accident involving alcohol, or drugs for that matter, is more to do with the fact that so many people drink and drive, because we are a nation of drinkers lets face it. Many people I know who say they are against drinking and driving actually still do it, its just that they drink less when driving plus the fact that they don’t go out much.
I drive a lot 1000+ Ks a week sometimes and the biggest problem I see on the roads is just bad, inattentive and selfish driving, not using mirrors (apart from applying make-up or just checking how good you look) and that old chestnut “I have the right of way so fk you”
the costs of additional infrastructure should be paid for by the developers, who benefit from it.
And, like I said, pass it on to the home buyer. You really think developers, out of the kindness of their hearts, actually cough up the cash?. The whole point of Govt. paying the upfront cost was to help make building new homes more effectively and cheaply without the horrendous cost of infrastructure. The way the system works at the moment is that somebody who wants to develop land often find themselves having to stump up money that could be better spent on better quality housing. Not holding my breath there though.
underpricing water is regressive.
Water falls from the sky, others collect it and charge for it. The infrastructure that reticulates is just another way of making us have to pay for our survival.
. Who wins there?.
I guess we could get “Mum and Dad” investors to take the risk and profit but I sincerely hope National will lose the next election regardless of how many people with two first names they can recruit to their sick power play.
closest current network
I can see where the confusion comes from but....
We are, or should be, looking at a country we all want to live in, not just Aucklanders or those with the ability to have the wherewithal to live there. What ever happened to the egalitarian principals this country was founded on?
It is the responsibility of central Govt. to do that in my humble opinion.
If you just happen, through right if inheritance, own a bit of land that could be developed then why should the onus be on you to provide infrastructure that will be to the benefit of society at large? I suppose you could just run a sewage pipe to the nearest river but that is so Canterbury farmer attitude for the likes of the majority.
We have a Govt. for a reason, this is one of the major reasons..
Who pays to build any new water and sewage lines across the region, not just within a subdivision to which development levies may apply?
TLDR? Central Govt. Spread the load, works for all not just the privileged.