My TV right now is 65" and 4K... I see EVERYTHING O_O
There's a difference between bobsled, rowing, relay et al. and basketball, soccer and other Olympic team sports. In the former the group are working as a single unit, whereas the latter is a group of individuals.
For example it would be possible for a team to win gold in the soccer even if they were reduced to ten players. This would not be the case for the rowers if they were to lose a crewman. This is not the specific reason we're against them, just an example of why I think there's a difference.
Best description of curling, ever.
Somethings I noted about the recording:
1. I recycled my skeleton jokes
2. This is the downhill skating I was referring to
From the Smellie piece:
Back in the day, when Trade Minister Tim Groser was just another diplomat assisting World Trade Organisation negotiations, he had to run a committee involving five big nations on a deadlocked issue.
Applying the "dark arts of trade negotiation", he inserted a different minor error into each of the five drafts distributed. If anyone leaked, he'd know who it was.
Tim Groser is not Sherlock fucking Holmes. Without citation this story reeks of more bullshit than the rest of the opinion piece.
Taking one thing you said and then rambling on where my brain went with it: Ultra HD is great for all sport, slo-mo not so much. Rugby for example, I feel, doesn't need slo-motion replays. There's barely time for them any way. Football (the round ball version) is another where a slo-mo shot, say of a header, results in some ugly scenes.
However, I find it amusing that cricket, one of the slowest and most boring of sports, looks amazing when slowed down even more in HD ultra-slo-mo.
Yeah that was weird, comment spam now deleted
Um - what's the point of a free trade agreement if it bans free trade
The general line is that the TPP is a series of chapters about de-regulating industry in order to facilitate free trade... except for the IP chapter which is all about tight regulation in order to allow companies to own their product until the end of the planet.
Oddly this means that parts of the TPP contradict. For example the overseas investor part means that (as George mentioned) overseas companies can sue our government in private court should we choose to regulate an industry.
(Aside: This actually happened in Australia where Philip Morris sued the government for regulation of cigarette packaging. When the local courts didn't work, PM moved all business offshore, declared themselves a foreign company and sued again).
The IP chapter regulates various industries meaning that implementing the TPP could see the government open itself up to lawsuits from heaps of companies.
this really is a boring topic
Can't tell if trolling but... I do sometimes wonder if that's why the media haven't done much on this. OpEds and stories in the political section of the paper don't get much traction. We need the clickbait headlines:
The Government is signing a secret deal to make your DVD player illegal!
Find out why Tim Groser thinks you should pay more for medicine
The Warehouse set for record loss under new Govt deal
US film studios set to write New Zealand law... again!
I'd say that it has more to do with the political culture of the people in the two main parties and their affinities and allegiances and ideas, than it has to do with anything else.
Well and the fact that AU and US have a FTA already in place. And from what I understand the TPP is largely similar to that FTA