Posts by Greg Dawson
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to steve broca,
The raiders election in 2008 has simply legitimised the disloyal behavior of those people….
Rather than blame "disloyal public servants" for being secretly National supporters while Labour was in government, you could make the same argument based on the more reality-aligned view that the cause was growing tendencies to corporate management styles (and all their economic baggage) within public services.
-
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to BenWilson,
Maybe related to where if you're angry, you're assumed to have lost the argument (even if there is no argument)?
I'm not sure how long it has been around in our communal psyche, but I know there is nothing more annoying to me than someone who gets patronising because you're angry about something - their thought process is that you're angry therefore you must be irrational.
We've lost rational anger, except as spectacle on the internets, and getting excited about that is irrational too.
-
Well, isn't the general opposition to no threshold based on fear of madmen and time wasters sneaking into the house?
I think that the ongoing efforts by the current government and opposition will eventually make that a much less unusual, and hence less frightening scenario.
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner,
Is there a way to do spoiler tags on system?
Would be nice to collapse copy-paste chunks.
-
OnPoint: H4x0rs and You, in reply to Emma Hart,
Fortunately, as I was saying to my partner during a rugby commentary the other day, English has lots of hit-points, and regenerates.
Super (language) geekery ahoy! Or was that a veiled attempt to troll?
And for my attempt to cap out irony for this thread - really, hyphenating hitpoints?
-
Field Theory: All. Black., in reply to Daniel Wilton,
careful - IAG isn't AIG, even if both were MIA in CHC and OTT in CDOs
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall,
It does sound like it would be very prone to vexatious use.
Being of a more mischievous bent, I’d be inclined to:
a) try and submit the first complaint in the form of “First!”
b) submit a complaint that the notices of tribunal decisions cause me emotional harm with their offensive limiting of speech*, and ask for them to be removed.ETA: * alternately argue that freedom of speech is a principle of my religious beliefs
-
Hard News: If wishing made it so ..., in reply to Matthew Poole,
I'm going to take a punt and assume you've been personally involved the drama around snapper vs hop at some point. That's some serious hate you've got for the snapper.
As a wellingtonian who relies on public transport, here's what I see with snapper (after using it for a couple of years now):
1. It fails if you've got a handful of other rfid cards in your wallet - you have to take it out and away from all those barfly loyalty cards. Actual waving it at the thing failure is rare and normally because the reader is bung.
2. The slowness of it is noticeable, but not the end of the world that you make it out to be. It's still a hold, pause, beep, that at best takes a second.
3. The major delays are always due to people struggling to move down the bus, not due to hold ups at the snapper. I don't think instantaneous card reaction will make all those people who are old, infirm, or drunk any faster between the seat rows. There's a human involved, not just an iteration of a read time.
I've also noticed that they use a lot of double readers now - you get around the slowness of the read by having two within reach, which allows two people to do it at the same time.
That said, of course a better, stronger,faster system would be even better.
-
Hard News: A fiction of unalloyed darkness, in reply to Bart Janssen,
No really, Martin Sheen is NOT the president.
Bet he'd have a strong chance of winning the democratic nomination next time it comes around though.
-
Speaker: Censorship is not the only…, in reply to 3410,
Such people should probably be advised of the following...
[Crimes Act]
But with zero enforcement (in particular jurisdictions), does a law mean anything (in particular jurisdictions)?
There's also the problem of separating the people who "really actually mean it" since the common defence is "it's just free speech, harden up you wuss" in classic kiwi manner.
Of course, the fact that that defence is used at all ignores the abusive and damaging effects of such speech and places all the value on the threat being carried out (a discussion I think we've had before, but can't remember where).