It's a pity Jim Anderton doesn't also listen to science when he's making drug policy (and no, I don't regard cherrypicking other drug war obsessives with dubious research methods as "science").
"New Zealand owned company" is trumped by "New Zealand Government owned company"
At least it's not Evil Canadian Pensioners!
I hope Orcon know what they're doing. The only people who'll pay $70 a month will be people who intend using *all* the gigabytes they're paying for. And they'll be complaining bastards if it doesn't work.
80:20 rule and all that..
the phoneline is essential
Humankind managed for 40,000 years without one.
I'm with Bart to some extent, and agree that doing science is a good idea.
But there are contra arguments. The US did lots of basic science through (say) 1950-80 and made money out of it. Japan (although this is a bit anecdotal) did bugger all and still managed very well economically by productionising other peoples technology.
However, one main reason for Japan's economic malaise since 1980 has been their inability to adapt to a world where software and marketing are more important than hardware. Whether more R&D would have helped in this remains to be seen.
I'd say that a bit of microeconomic pushing (and $500 mln would seem to be a sensible amount) in the right direction is a fairly good idea.
Yawn... They'll still be an American politician whoever wins.
If people buy the product thinking the of the Shire but then realise Fonterra is in fact Saruman the White this may prove effective
Could you translate this please?
Queenstown's massive growth comes from the viticulture industry and expanding dairying into the lower South Island.
I thought it came from Aucklanders (mostly) mortgaging themselves up the wazoo to own a ski house.
I'm fairly sure I've seen them reported as being given in evidence. Graeme?
Commented on this Saturday.
Just another demonstration of how our monopoly newspapers have a built-in bias towards authoritarianism, if not explicitly towards the National party (until recently).
Incidentally, I'm surprised that defence lawyers don't question the admissability of text messages as evidence, considering they can be easily forged: http://www.smsspoofing.com/