But when google came along it was a seismic shift in searching.
...And now it doesn't just mine data about websites people might want to read, it mines data about its users.
It's a bit weird how stuff changes. I've recently switched from Chrome back to Firefox/Iceweasel because I became sick of so much of everything I do on the 'net being so dependent on Google. It's only a token change in the scheme of things, but it's kept me sane.
Maybe I only saw one side of it, but I remember the big point-of-difference with Ask Jeeves being that it let people type in questions, instead of search terms. It was meant to be more naturally usable, and therefore become extremely popular to sell more advertising, or something.
I don’t think its actual search results were especially better than anything else around. That’s what mattered in the end.
A 2011 MBIE paper included this graph on the percentage of people who agree that “it is a good thing for a society to be made up of people from different races, religions, and cultures”
From following the link it looks as if that chart came from a 2000 study that was centred on Europe, plus MBIE pulled Australian data from a 2003 study, and the NZ data was taken from another study in 2008. Australia and parts of Europe might have increased (or decreased) in the 5 to 8 years since NZ data was added.
Nevertheless it’s great to see NZ circling the top of that graph. What I’d be really interested in seeing, though, is how some of the other societies rate beyond Europe. Maybe the likes of South American, Asian and African nations. It could be quite fascinating to gauge who thinks their societies benefit from outside cultures, and then maybe dig a little deeper to discover what that actually means to them when they say that, what they’re already experiencing and what they expect from mixing other cultures in. Like, if lots of people in a society are very accepting, is that because they’re already feeling very secure with maintaining their own culture? Why do they feel that way when some others obviously don’t? Do people who answer that question only think of the other cultures they're already mostly aware of?
When Lorde emerged at Sydney airport yesterday she was flanked by both private security guards and (according to Jonathan Marshall on Twitter) no fewer than 10 Australian Federal Police officers.
I do hope that New Zealand never becomes like this as habit, though, in the sense of using gratuitous Police presence to absolutely overwhelm any potential issue anywhere. Something I really disliked about living in Melbourne, and what I saw of Sydney when there, was the frequency with which Police commonly roam the streets in intimidating gangs of 4 or more.
Hopefully this is just a passing phase.
My comment was about the impossibility of Internet voting at this election.
My comment was about the view I might form of this party based on its policies (if it actually has any). :)
Will those 15,000 young people vote at all?
Possibly not, but they might all sign a petition stating that they should be allowed to vote online.
Come to think of it, has anyone seen any hints of what the Internet Party’s policy (if any) might actually be towards Online Voting, given the degree of internet actually involved? It’s not something I’ve ever been able to associate as compatible with a free and fair election, at least in terms of things like guaranteed anonymity and less likelihood of coercion at the time of voting. (Most of it isn't too different from postal voting in many respects, but we don't use postal voting in national elections.)
I can say with complete confidence that my life would have been worse had my mother been investigated, charged and convicted for smacking me and my brothers.
Can you say with as much confidence that your life would have been worse if your mother had not smacked you and your brothers, knowing that smacking was not legal?
That’s more what’s at issue, because if the law had been what it now is when you were growing up, your mother very possibly would have acted completely differently. Especially if it had been that way for a number of years.
I can’t speak with qualified expertise, but I know plenty of young modern parents who appear, in my view, to be doing a great job bringing up their children without resorting to smacking them. I know several who don't seem to be doing as-great a job, but in their cases I can't imagine that being allowed to smack would make the slightest difference.
For example, in winter many cyclists (for understandable reasons) festoon themselves with so much flashing, pulsing and static lights in orange, red and white that they look like a Hindu festival on acid. Much of that light is probably illegal.
Is it legal for trucks? Sometimes on the highways at night I've wondered if a few of the giant christmas trees driving towards me might be more likely to distract or (worse) attract oncoming drivers than alert them.
People will make mistakes and poor choices. The idea is to get to a point where the penalty for making a mistake isn’t death, and where the “correct” route isn’t too risky to countenance.
It doesn’t directly involve cycling, but I found it telling browsing the YouTube comment thread under the LTSA’s latest “Mistakes” TV ad (which went viral globally).
Many people who comment, particularly among those who think it’s a stupid or pointless ad, seem to be very strongly of an opinion that it’s all the fault of either driver X or driver Y, and that all of road safety’s problems would be solved if either Driver X/Y hadn’t been such an idiot, or allowed to have a licence to begin with.
It’s really no wonder that the vehicle/cyclist thing riles up so many strong vocal and inflexible opinions.
I can’t even ride a bike, so all this feels like it’s from another planet, but it seems to me that cyclists running red lights are totally different from motorists.
I’m also not a cyclist, but I’m a frequent pedestrian (and I drive when I need to). To me it’s always seemed that the only logical reason we’ve ever had road rules is to create structure and predictibility of highly lethal privately owned and operated juggernauts with substantial momentum, in order to protect everyone else. You can look at old street photos of places like Wellington and Auckland, and people are milling around and socialising and going from place to place all over the road, often betwen trams. eg. Lambton Quay in 1905, Oriental Parade in 1915, and Queen Street of 1919. Nearly all this social transit space has now been lost to highly structured motorised vehicle channels, and for decades now we’ve been designing stuff that’s widely spread ages apart from everything else, merely (and ironically) to accomodate people’s ability to drive between them.
That can only now exist in rare places by design (like pedestrian malls or cycle trails), because the imposed structure makes simply going direct from A to B very inefficient for anyone who’s not driving. Especially when stopping and starting on a bike takes so much effort, as does (for pedestrians) walking significant lengths to designed safe crossings, only to have to wait for ages for nothing to happen, then walk all the way back.
So I’m all for chasing and dealing with cyclists and pedestrians when they carelessly interfere with other traffic that has a right-of-way. But if they’re actually being careful, and ensuring there are reasonable gaps and stuff before intervening in a road-space, then it seems silly to me to prosecute a cyclist for running a red light that primarily exists to enforce structure on motorised traffic, and when they’re inhibiting nobody, or to prosecute a pedestrian who doesn't bother to wait for an electronic sign to say it's safe to cross. Really, though, the more separate we can keep motorised vehicles from our living and working spaces, the better.