The teacher of my 5 year old said that after a year at primary, students should be at a reading level of 15 according to national standards BUT she felt that level 13 was fine for students at that age. They are just numbers to me but I realise that they are code for the difficulty of book that they can read.
And this is at a decile 9 school where most kids are being read to every night.
We are a reading household, with hundreds of books and my daughter loves them, so if she's below the national standard then where is the bar being set?
Same here - except my daughter is 6 and 1/2 and at decile 5 school. We read to her every night and she seems to be getting there (just slower than other students). Her reading level is 14 which is below where she is supposed to be. But her teacher tells us we don't need to worry that she is improving and will get there. She can read failing though and understand it. So is that what she's going to see from National Standards?
In the past we got great, detailed reports listing overall comments. And even more helpful a list of skills and her aptitude at them. Positively framed so that it went something like Got It, Mostly There, Getting There, Still to Come. People may say those are meaningless phrases but as parents we understood exactly where she was with every thing (counting backwards from 20 etc) and it was worded in a way that wouldn't lower her self-esteem which of course will hinder further learning.
If we want to curb liquor consumption, get the stuff out of supermarkets, stop all off-licence sales after 9pm on Friday to midday on Monday and set a minimum price for alcohol.
I don't think the supermarket idea would work and would inconvenience many people. From my experience teenagers buy their alcohol from liquor stores. Also I find liquor stores are far more likely to sell alcohol to people under-age than supermarkets. When I was under-age, my friends and I would always go to certain liquor stores we knew would sell to us; we knew not to even try supermarkets as we'd get nowhere.
If you are going to allow alcohol to be sold then I don't see why supermarkets can't sell it. If price is the problem then you increase excise tax, mandate a minimum price etc.
But really as others have mentioned this isn't the type of problem that can be fixed by simply passing a law.
I'm pretty sure the terms of every liquor license in Auckland say you’re not supposed to get your patrons in a state where they’re power-chucking all over the ceilings of public loos
I agree but isn't it hard for people in a quick encounter (like serving a drink, or seeing someone at a door) to actually tell if someone is intoxicated? If you know someone well, or have been with them throughout the evening - sure you can tell. But I think it would often be hard for bar staff/door people to tell if someone is really intoxicated.
Blake is gender-ambiguous?
Isn't it? I have known both males and a female called Blake. Though admittedly the female one is Canadian. Wonder if it is a little like Blair, which in NZ seems to be a primarily male name whereas in the US at least it's gender-neutral.
An upper house is an abomination for the ANZ parliamentary system- we select candidates from just which group?
We could elect them at a General Election (similar to the US Senate System) vote. So you could have an Upper House made up of less politicians covering a broader area. And you could have your standard electorate vote, party vote plus a Senate (or whatever you wanna call it) vote. This Senate could be elected proportionally in which case you'd vote for a party rather than an individual. Or it could be done by voting for individuals, in which case my preferred electoral system would be STV (Single Transferable Vote).
Not necessarily saying I agree with an Upper House. Just suggesting that we could have a democratic Upper House (as Australia does).
28 grams.don't rip yourself off
I always think it better to be on the generous side to customers :) Plus tobacco sells in 30gm pouches - so thought I would keep the comparison equal.
I think we don't get much home-grown tobacco because:
a. It tastes foul compared to the commercial stuff (in my experience anyway)
b. If you are going to the bother of growing something - why grow tobacco where 30 grams will sell for about up to $30 (assuming it will be discounted from shop prices) whereas alternatively you could grow pot and receive $250 - $350 per 30 grams.
Growing your own tobacco only makes sense as a hobby.
This is OK to a point, there is economy in specialization, but people can become overspecialized very, very easily. This carries a lot of problems with it. It is extremely risky, can leave those people with nothing if what they are specialized in loses value.
I always love the quote:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
I can do some of the things on the list but would always like to learn more. And I think he makes a fundamental point that humans' great strength is being flexible, adaptable and multi-skilled.
Jo Walton at Tor, however, is my goto blog for keepers.
Yep, she's great. I've just finished her extensive re-read blog on Patrick Rothfuss's Kingkiller Chronicles.
I also agree about finding it easier to read on a Kindle. I was, also, surprised to find this having been one of those ardent people who proclaimed that nothing would replace an actual physical book. Physical books still have a huge advantage for both photos and maps.
But he did copy other people's creative works and enrich himself from them.
Wasn't it more a case that he provided the means for other people to copy other people's creative work? Or did he actually do some of the copying himself?