anxious about looking stupid
You get used to it, trust me.
It's actually why I love Emma's blog so much - I feel stupider here than most places. That sounds odd but when you say something stupid here you usually learn something and you generally don't get abused in the process.
That's kind of the thing I was getting at. Rather than Megan's point about not daring to enter the stuff comments, a sentiment clearly based on intelligence rather than fear, but instead suggesting that a person might naturally adopt set level of risk regardless of the absolute level of risk.
That may not make sense (heh, may) so for example say Emma* happened to find herself in a knitting circle she would adopt a behaviour that shocked 70% of the participants, like by saying dammit when she dropped a stitch. But when in her local S&M dungeon would shock 70% of the participants by saying ... er I'm not really sure I know and certain I don't want to know.
The idea is rather than finding a community where she can be herself and not shock her friends she has a natural desire to be a certain level of shocking.
*totally fictitious character of course
This also relates to David's column about bike helmets where drivers give a cyclist without a helmet more space - because like they think the helmet will help when they run the cyclist over with their 1 tonne car.
So do people adjust their behaviour to a "level of risk" depending on the environment. Not just are they more open in some "safer" environments but rather do we each have a level of risk we actively want to take. So in a safer environment we push the boundaries to achieve our desired risk level?
The other part of this may be that for some people the kind of risk on the internet is much greater. You are much more likely to be called an idiot on the internet. If being called an idiot is the most scary thing for you then the internet is a much more dangerous place than the "real world". I know people who would much rather be punched in the face than have an idea exposed as incorrect.
Yeah I've been Sth and noticed those odd buildings and had no clue what ...
nah too much sarcasm for one day
The point is "is it more efficient to ship those goods to and from the Auckland port through the heart of the city or more efficient to use another port?"
And I'm not being silly about this but I'm just aware that sometime the obvious answer (closest port) is not the best answer.
I tend to think that we probably need some level of port in Auckland but I also am not certain that we need as much as we have nor that we need to expand what we have.
While Russell may not want more luxury apartments there may still be better uses of that land in the centre of our city. And by better I mean better for all New Zealand not just better for developers or better for councilors.
Perhaps more relevant questions might be
How much of what comes into Auckland actually stays in Auckland as opposed to being sent elsewhere
How much of what goes out of Auckland actually comes from Auckland as opposed to being made elsewhere
I think one issue lurking in a background is the justification for having the Port at Auckland at all.
It seems to me there is a lot of logic in the argument that the whole venture could be more efficiently run at an entirely different site.
With that prospect lurking in the background then if the managers of POAL want to keep the port at all and hence their jobs, they need to demonstrate a return on investment greater that that which could be achieved by turning the land to other uses.
In short if the land is worth more as apartments and offices than it is as a port then the managers of POAL are out of a job.
So they'll do anything to increase the return. That basically means cutting costs to the bare bones.
The $91,000 figure was something of a PR masterstroke. It had zing. Everyone started using it. And it was deeply misleading.
Why? What is the real figure and what are the assumptions? I'm guessing the median is lower and I'm also guessing it includes an assumption of overtime which is also unreasonable.
It would be nice to know what the relevant number really is and of course at the same time what the salaries of the SET are currently set at.
Hmmm I own a company and install a CEO to manage it.
Said CEO behaves like a reprehensible neanderthal.
I a) boot CEO and replace him with a human being
or b) have lunch
Why bother? Gold has no intrinsic use
Why build new power generation capacity?
Because the old ones are old. Most of our hydroelectric generation is old and dams have a lifetime as do the generators inside them. Old things wear out, for example my knees. If you don't plan to replace them they break.
Also because new technology means that a new power generator is more efficient and more forgiving on the environment than the old one. This allows you to retire old equipment before it breaks.
Also new technology means that new power generation methods are possible that simply didn't exist 50 years ago. So you build new types of power generation. More efficient and better for the environment hopefully.
Also New Zealand has bugger all natural resources. But we do have water and renewable energy. Those resources are increasing in value all the time worldwide. Now I'm not sure about building more concrete dams and I certainly don't want more coal power stations but building wind farms and building tidal power generation could actually create a resource we could sell.
The last is obviously more speculative but it is worth thinking seriously about.