I went to one primary school - out of five - that had bible class - on Auckland's North Shore in the 70s. My mother rarely attended PTA meetings, but this made her go absolute apeshit when she found out. Most of her demeanour in those days was "stoic", but that one really riled her up.
Outcome was the school made bible class optional for everyone, with no pressure, although still during school hours.
As far as karakia is concerned in parliament, one that acknowledges the land and the people, preferably alternating the official languages, is fine by me. Sadly, I've heard way too much Atua, Atua, Atua in non-religious contexts more recently.
I vote "yes".
I agree. The lawyers may not be au fait with the ins and outs of server security controls, but the analogies of leaving doors unlocked are pretty apposite.
We can handwave as much as we like about deep linking and image scraping, but it is patently obvious when those parts of a site are linked through from the publicly-published part of the site.
Opportunistically looking for \docs or \mbx folders is not the same. There is a pretty well-known issue with using phpadmin to manage MySql databases without adequate security. When I ran the applicable Google query and found a significant number of sites at the ANU in Australia affected (not just website content in some of the databases, but personal details from registered users), I didn't delete, interfere with, or copy the data. Or actually look very far. I emailed the various university departments to alert them of the issue. (And received not a single reply, but at least I tried.)
I do agree with the main thrust of the piece about the ethical differences between Hager and the Labour Party web hack. Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the Whaleoil hack could have been as simple as guessing a password to a multi-role server. I have web hosting, and I keep documents, a website, and all kinds of crap on it.
However, I still think I'd rather know how Hager'sdata was obtained. It could have been leaked by a participant in the conversations (admittedly unlikely). It could have been an Anonymous-type person or group of people trying to get at Slater. It could have been someone hired to maintain the website, web-hosting, or someone otherwise involved with him professionally (if the latter, even hinting at it could lead into trouble).
While I am pleased this wanker is getting his comeuppance of sorts, as an IT professional, the possibility of someone compromising their professional integrity, or, some vandal trying to compromise systems, does bug me. Their actions are no different to what we are bitching about in relation to the Labour Party hack. Maybe I'd feel happier if I knew it was an anonymous whistle-blower from the inside.
The trouble with wankers like these is that they believe us leftie liberals are just the same behind closed doors (well, some of us are), and the inclusive "PC" language and blather is exactly that. Blather, and but a deeply-held political stance.
People like that believe we'd be just as opportunist as them, given the chance, but with an extra helping of hypocrisy. Given some members of the leftie parliamentary parties, they might be excused a small degree of confusion, but they think we're all that way.
And on the other side, I know there are National voters who genuinely believe in small-c conservative principles. But the current culture for the main players can only be described as toxic.
I'm just becroggled at the number of people who apparently never chanted abuse at the current PM of the day, or who never attended a political or protest event where it occurred.
I mean, really, the only thing that's "new" about this is the event organisers taking advantage of the current social media norms by uploading it for public view. A lot of social media is about being seen to be involved in X cool activity ("cool" as defined by your peer group), and it could be argued that they would have been seen as terminally un-savvy if they'd failed to upload such an obviously crowd-rallying moment. It would have been recorded by many participants anyway.
I do agree it was in somewhat bad taste to have been apparently endorsed by a serious party seeking election, but the event aims were a bit of a muddle - performers weren't just there to endorse I-M or KDC.
Nice Godwin there from Mr Trotter
Maybe these simulation exercises help people who have no imagination or limited empathy, but I personally prefer hearing about the experiences of people who deal with this kind of thing on a daily basis.
The big ear muffs, for example, strike me as both patronising (due to their obviousness) and inaccurate as to how Deaf people experience interactions with the hearing. For example, often deafness is "invisible" (at least at first), so a Deaf person has to start off an interaction by indicating that they can't hear.
(Disclaimer: I'm not Deaf/hard of hearing myself, but this is what I've been told by people who are.)
It takes about 30 seconds of rational thought to figure out that wheelchair accessibility is good for a business (hint: it's not just wheelchair users whose mobility can be facilitated by ramps and easy-opening doors or lifts) , but many STILL grumble about their legal obligations.
If they can't take that 30 seconds to think, then maybe getting them to use a wheelchair to carry out their normal business for a few hours might get them to open their thick skulls? But how much of that kind of stunt would be about being seen to do the right thing (rather than employ some basic thought, consideration, and yes, respect).
I feel the same way about the sleeping outdoors one day a year for that charity. Yup, it's nice that people are having their "awareness raised" and then get to sleep in their comfortable beds the next night. If you haven't had that actual experience yourself before (I have, fortunately briefly), what exactly do you think as you walk past street sleepers? Is it really your awareness that needs raising?
Really? So because I lived in England for several years, and I've lived in Australia for several more, and no longer have a true-blue kiwi accent (it even sounds "posher" than most in NZ), I no longer meet some "vision" of a "non-settler class" NZer (however that might be distinguishable from any other Pakeha)?
You can say he sounds like a twunt because of WHAT he says, but to bag out an accent like that no different to characterizing Westies or South Aucklanders as "stupid" due to how they speak.
(My family live in Sth Auckland, and they use the local speech patterns.)
Yup, indirectly characterizing the arguments as ad hominem really only works when none of the substance of the argument was addressed (obviously it was), and that there was an irrelevant description of someone's personal characteristics (such as their accent - I mean, really? I don't sound like a rool kiwi myself these days). There's nothing wrong with describing someone's actual observed behaviour as "crybaby" and tantrum-throwing.
With Buzzfeed, there should definitely be a move away from the more egregious swiping of content from other places without "value added". I notice they're being a bit more careful with attributions, but the posts that consist of ALL the images from someone else's blog article, with only a sentence of introduction, do annoy.
So I hope the trend continues away from wholesale "recycling" and more towards new news content and infotainment. I don't mind aggregation either, if it is collating from various sources into a new piece of content (like those "10 best beaches" kind of thing) and properly acknowledging sources.