Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Just great to hear that you have recovered so well.
And simply wonderful to hear that you have your sight improved.
And also great to hear that
yesterday I bought shoes and they were pretty
and you know that we need to see the pictures :).
I can't really explain why but it makes me very happy to hear that a person I know only virtually is feeling much better.
-
Ok so I'm tired and cynical today so my take is we'll get some cool ideas with lots of neat options like catering for pedestrians and cyclists and trains and it will look nice too...
BUT
It will cost $6 billion and that will be presented by Joyce or whomever as too much and causing poor taxpayers to have to pay more of their hard earned money just for a local project so we simply must cut the costs and well looking pretty is a luxury we can't afford and not many people ride bikes across the current bridge anyway and who wants to walk that far and there is not train connection north so....
<pauses for breath>
Well just build this 4 lane ugly POS but it will be cheaper so you should vote for us because we saved you from higher taxes.But in the interest of being positive and tossing in some ideas.
How about sticking wind turbines on the side of it to generate power and/or some solar panels on the top of a cool roof structure? Personally I think wind turbine look great but that's probably just me.
The electricity could be used to power a travelator (not as cool as one under the harbour but still better than walking.
Is Chelsea Sugar the only reason big ships need to go under it? If so, then maybe it would be cheaper to move the sugar refinery and build a lower bridge?
Is there some way to hide the motorway part at the city end so where you walk/cycle off becomes a recreational precinct? Perhaps make sure the cars stay up on a viaduct?
Make the piers into rock climbing parks?
I really do hope we end up with something nice, we don't have to do everything on the cheap and nasty and we can create some beautiful things in NZ. And I think it's good for a society to do something cool and audacious occasionally.
-
Must correct you there. According to Treasury, government appropriations amount to about 5% of TVNZ's income.
Wow I didn't realise they were so close to actually running in the black. And they definitely don't get most of their money from the government then.
I'm still not happy about giving 19 million from one group of accountants and then taking back 1.47 million with another group of accountants. That seems pointless.
-
pay the government a dividend every year
Does anyone else think this dividend stuff is a complete waste of money?
Isn't National meant to be all about cutting back on wasted bureaucracy? Surely going through the accounting needed to take a dividend from a Government owned institute the gets most of it's money from the Government is a total waste of money.
Of course it does keep more accountants employed - sigh.
-
When I heard about TPK funding Maori TV to bid for the Rugby I wasn't impressed. It seemed a weird way to go about handing tax money to the IRB. As the story came out it was clear that some pretty shonky politics was involved but what can you expect from politicians.
But at that point I think it should have ended, after a suitable dressing down of the politicians involved (Mr Sharples has demonstrated just what kind of a person he is).
Instead now we have more tax money being handed to the IRB via TVNZ/TV3 and the excuses for doing it are pathetic. Given the watching of Rugby has declined dramatically over the past 10 years the fact that 10-15% of people can't get Maori TV is irrelevant. If you take into account the fraction of folks who even want to watch it then only may 3-4% of kiwis will be missing out on something they wanted. In short it was more political shonkery.
So for my money (and it is my money) the only thing worse than using tax dollars to fund Maori TV to pay the IRB is to use my tax dollars (and yours) to fund TVNZ/TV3 to pay the IRB.
-
our government bidding against itself in a rights auction
And the IRB is laughing all the way to the bank.
Amid all the bullcrap being spouted about controlling government waste this happens and no heads roll?
Nice piece Russell and nice work by the journos who figured out what was going on.
-
Maybe part of the appeal of the women in Bones (right with ya there, btw) is that their characters are also really, really smart?
Yup. I'll broaden that to really talented, which is something I find engaging and attractive. I find people who have and use talent much more attractive and it is a feature of Bones.
That said "stupid" is very much an unattractive trait for me anyway. But I know people for whom that wouldn't be a reason to kick them out of bed, shrug.
Also agree about the photos thing. Which was the point of asking the question because the studies with photos have been done to some degree and are interesting but I doubt tell the whole story.
I'll just have to dream up an experiment, preferably one with lightening balls, cause they are so cool.
-
'GRARGHevolutionarybiologyevolutionarypsychologySTABBY!'
Whereas I like your version much better Danielle :).
This stuff fascinates me precisely because of the really wonderful mix of things that go into deciding whether or not they "wouldn't kick out of bed".
The reality is that biology plays a part but it by no means is the whole or even dominant factor in the actual choices people make.
I wasn't meaning to suggest for a second that it wasn't complex or for a second trying to diminish the whole romanticism of forming relationships.
-
Everyone finds different things attractive, don't they?
OK a very PC answer and sure I agree to a point.
BUT
Heterosexual men are typically attracted to several basic features in women most of which can be directly linked to reproductive success (hips, breasts, youth, fitness). Similarly with heterosexual women although the data suggests it isn't as strong an effect as for men. And yes of course there is a broad spectrum and outliers.
So while acknowledging that everyone is different and I certainly don't expect any one person to speak for a whole class ... I'm still curious as to whether those genetic (and yes they appear to be genetic) attractiveness triggers are the same.
My partner has gradually been learning which men I will find attractive
Same here, but I still sometimes get it spectacularly wrong :). But I feel that's more about learning about one persons taste, eg if it sparkles it is good :).
-
...and none of the women?
OK since this is about the only place I can ask the question...
Are bisexual women attracted to the same women to which heterosexual men are attracted?
I know I can't remotely predict which men women find attractive and frequently find myself saying "you like him? But why?"
So is the fact that I think the women on Bones attractive any indication that they are attractive to women?