I’m dumping on him for not being organised as a Finance Spokesperson because he was too busy campaigning for the leadership.
Oh, except that Goff already had the numbers and was hoping to delay their release for a couple of days. From above a comment above - http://business.scoop.co.nz/2011/11/19/phil-goff-on-the-nation-2/
I'm a little surprised at the this article, to be honest. Are you sure it wasn't written by Keith Not Ng, it is bereft of factual information.
I think in asking where Cunliffe was when the hard questions about numbers were asked, Keith has put his finger on an important reason why the previous incumbents might not support Cunliffe.
Except Trevor Mallard took the rap for that on twitter after the debate. All Goff needed was a bit of instant wit and quick fire repartee.
As Winston said "the money's in the pockets of your rich banking mates, John".
Dumping on Cunliffe for being organised, good grief, does Labour really want 9 more years to work out its policies for NZ?
Here comes NBR on a "Get Winston" white charger:
I wonder if that story has been waiting in the wings "just in case".
I love that this surely must signal the end of Dave as PM.
Don't you believe it. Margaret Thatcher kept in power for far too long by setting the British up against each other. A mindset that continues today.
I wonder about the number of looters who will (deservedly) end up in gaol and whether they will out number the bankers and financiers there?
Anything that limits our obsession with recycling stuff honestly at this point is fine by me.
Well that's a shame. We would surely have missed out on M.I.A.'s excellent "Paper Planes" under your rules.
Optimize supply chains at home in my spare time?
Well, you could - http://www.adempiere.com/ADempiere_ERP
But you knew I was going to say that, right?
I also have no beef with Disney holding on to Mickey Mouse to be honest.
Maybe. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with them holding the rights over the works of AA Milne for longer than absolutely necessary.
I think what we do with copyright needs to be finer-grained than what you suggest.
Yes, I think you are right. Though not necessarily in the commercial/non-commercial split. I think that split is false and certainly something that is (mostly) avoided in the free/open source software world.
I do wonder just how much revenue copyright itself drives. It is interesting that so many have access to free "pirated content" and yet when given the opportunity to pay reasonable for the same content they will often do so. I don't think copyright on its own explains that phenomenon.
Which is not to do away with copyright, just to suggest that its effect can be overstated.
Russell, the point is this, the term of copyright was originally set to 7 + 7 years to allow publishers and authors time to reap reward for their works - assuming they could get an audience who would pay for their efforts.
At the time, 300 years ago, the distribution networks were muddy roads, horses and sailing ships. Today, the distribution network for digital content is te interwebs. The potential audience is billions and the time to market is seconds *.
The response of the US "content" industry has been to demand copyright terms of life plus 120 years. I am proposing a counter offer based solely on the improvements that technology have brought us in the intervening years.
Which proposal is the most reasonable in that context? I am certainly willing to listen to arguments in favour of a longer term than 24 hours for digital content. Not to do so would be stupid, but longer than the 7 years deemed reasonable for publishers 300 years ago? Come on.
*Note, for the purposes of this debate I am limiting my attention to digital content...
Given the theme of Russell's article, isn't it remarkable (and good) that this time round the discussion is about gender and the internet rather than copyright.
Maybe now would not be a good time to throw in my "24 hours" digital copyright term proposal. Round about minute 5, but the preceding 5 minutes Q&A are good.