Hmmm... management in Auckland, in-house programmers in Portugal...
Thats a mighty big house, I would have thought I'd have noticed it, does it cause some navigational problems for all the container ships bringing us music players from China?
Hmm... this law appears to need changing fairly quickly...
You are looking smaller at sub-parts of computers--- but if you look in the other direction...
That caveat, you mention-
“if a person who is authorised to access a computer system accesses that computer system for a purpose other than the one for which that person was given access.”
In conjunction with
(i) a computer; or
(ii) 2 or more interconnected computers; or
(iii) any communication links between computers or to remote terminals or another device; or
(iv) 2 or more interconnected computers combined with any communication links between computers or to remote terminals or any other device; and
Seems to STRONGLY suggest that as I and/or my ISP authorise myself to access my computer and it's internet connection.... then it's not illegal for me to access any other computer on that internet.... it's all just one big "computer system" no?
I guess tram tracks are so uncommon here that it's not common knowledge?
If you grow up in Melbourne you get told at primary school--- beware the tram-tracks on your bike..
Any wet metal has no grip and is thus a braking/steering hazard... but the really bad hazard of the tram-track is if your front wheel drops into the slot...
The way you actually stay upright on a bike is by constantly falling to one side, steering into it until you are falling the other-way, and then steering back the other way...... Anyone who doesn't believe this needs to try riding a bike with the steering locked in the straight ahead position.
If your tyre is skinny enough to fall in- once your front wheel is in the tram-track slot, you ARE going to fall off. (Ok, if you are REALLY quick, you might be able to hop it out?). If you have a wider tyre than the slot, or your rear gets slotted, your chances can be better but you could still easily not be able to overcome the loss of steerability....
No cycleway we’ve got anywhere yet actually has speed humps (aimed at cyclists)
Not intentionally… but the regular stretches of bumpy asphalt over tree-roots of the otherwise much smoother (but less than perfect) patchy concrete on the Gt North Rd/ Waterview stretch do a pretty good job of it if you are on a bike with skinny high-pressure tyres :)
Do people need to be so explicitly told what to do… or with enough width and decent sight lines, can they just be left to get on with it?
I'm with Alice above... So far we've been pretty bad at "sorting it out for ourselves' and seeing as this flyover has more width than any other shared path I know of... lets try something new...
It may come as a surprise to some non-cyclists just how fast a not-racing but keen to get somewhere cyclist can be going... 30km/h on the flat requires only moderate fitness, 40-50km/h with some hill assist does not require any great level of fitness... whereas walkers are usually doing 5-10km/h, and non-urgent/social riders 10-20 km/h. And kids and dogs can be un-predictable or have a leash long-enough to block 3 or 4 metres of lane-width...
We may not need physically divided barriers for each... but at-least some visual indication of expected behaviour in different zones would be helpful for not just those who want to go quick, but also those who don't want to get bowled over...
That is another image of him touching a young girls hair! How many are there? Ew
I'm assuming/hoping (since it's Stuff) that that is the same one referred to earlier by Bruce Ward as being in an offline Nelson paper?
Also, different enough to not be noticed as creepy at the time.... but now fitting a pattern?
Last year, Key was invited to help shave then-Canterbury Earthquake Recovery boss Roger Sutton's head for charity. Key was given the important job of chopping off Sutton's ponytail - and took to it with relish. "Oh yeah, this is actually quite a lot of fun," said Key, with obvious delight. "Can I say how clean your hair is?"
And now, after one person stands up for themselves... more come out of the woodwork...
Prime Minister John Key allegedly pulled the pony-tails of two school girls while on a visit to the national museum.
Mark Blackham of BlacklandPR said his 12-year-old daughter watched last night's television news and said, "that's what the Prime Minister did at Te Papa to my two friends".
The photo caption reads “Prime Minister John Key plays with a young girl’s hair as he talks to mothers at the opening of the Nelson Young Parents School at Auckland Point School last year”. It certainly shows the man with his fingers in hair.
I cannot find the article or the photo in the on-line edition at Stuff!
I found this instead..
If it was a one-off… you might just possibly accept he thought he was helping the girl get her ponytail off her shoulder “for the camera"… but as part of an ongoing pattern- we now know of at-least three females subject to similar – it seems REALLY creepy... especially the bit where it looks like he gives it a quick rub or fondle rather than just move it...
The same friend also claimed that the reason we have backwards dials is because some cheap-ass bureaucrat back in the 30s got a bunch of phones cheap back in the 30s because the dials were on backwards, it just wasn’t an issue until NZ got electronic exchanges, and STD to the rest of the world (all our numbers were backwards)
Hmm, I heard a contradictory rumour, that a cheap-ass bureaucrat was indeed responsible... but for different reasons... because they didn't want to pay a royalty or license fee to the inventor (BT?), so they copied the basic idea but changed it enough to be a new invention...
Also, in the '80s when everyone was handing their old grey dial phone back to the Post Office (or maybe it had just become Telecom?) in exchange for the ubiquitous beige PERT phones... the old dial-phones were all cleaned, and refurbished back into perfect working order.... before being put en-mass into dumpsters for disposal!!!
Also, do you have an opinion on whether the fact he "confessed" (falsely) diminishes his claim?
I'm not trying to suggest he doesn't deserve (lots of) compensation... but maybe not as much compensation as someone who'd been wrongly convicted, served 20+ years, but hadn't gotten themselves into the mess in the first place by their own actions?