Posts by SteveH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
FiveThirtyEight point out that his lead in the endorsement primary is unimpressive because 80% of both the most conservative third and the central third of the party have not committed their endorsements yet. They agree that Jeb! is probably toast.
I think Rubio is the most likely candidate now too, though a month ago I would have picked Bush so what do I know?
-
Polity: The pantheon of sporting dominance, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
The papers seem strangely reluctant to give any oxygen, let alone much coverage or comment, to Lydia Ko regaining her Number One position.
Heck they still seem to give more coverage to Tiger Woods’ ex-caddy!I watched some of the Golf Channel coverage of her last few wins. They commented on the lack of attention her story has gotten and were also somewhat mystified. The best explanations they could come up with was the fact that she's not American (in context of the lack of coverage in US media), and that she has a low-key and friendly personality. Is she simply not exciting enough? I don't know.
She's (yet) not dominating the way the All Blacks do, or the way Tiger Woods did in his heyday, but what she's achieving is unprecedented in golf (including in the men's game). I expect the attention will come if she can stay at the top.
-
This links in to the reason I believe McCaw is the greatest of all time. Before McCaw’s debut, the All Blacks lost about 2 games in 10. Since his debut, when he hasn’t played, the record is 17-7-1. They’ve lost nearly 4 games in 10. But when McCaw is playing is 131-15-2, they’ve lost only 1 game in 10. It’s reasonable to say that because McCaw is there the All Blacks win half of the games they would typically lose. That’s an incredible stat.
-
Polity: TPP, eh?, in reply to Steve Withers,
Aren’t we allowed to make any distinction at all between citizens and non-residents? If we can tax them – as the government has suggested – how is that any different?
My understanding is that the TPPA similar existing agreements (notably the China FTA via the Korea FTA) require us to treat citizens of those countries no worse than our own citizens. So we can make laws that restrict non-resident foreigners' ability to purchase of property, or that create taxes on non-resident foreign owners, but those laws will have to apply to non-resident NZers in the same way. Which is not a significant problem, IMO.
-
Polity: TPP, eh?, in reply to Martin Brown,
Well aware of the difference between songs and masters re. copyright – but the fact is NZ more and more a place where the originators are independent and own their recordings and a song you record and own at 17 can be damn useful to you and your family when you’re 67 and some brand wants to license it.
It’s 50 (soon 70) years after death of the creator. No one will lose any potential income during their life time either way. Honestly, I don’t see much reason why your family should continue to benefit from your creation 50 or 70 years after you die.
-
Polity: TPP, eh?, in reply to Jason Kemp,
Secondly – it has been suggested that TPP only needs to be passed by NZ cabinet and not something that even needs to be voted on by parliament. Does anyone know what the ratification process is for NZ ?
The treaty itself is ratified by cabinet, it does not require a parliamentary vote. However the law changes required to comply with the treaty will be voted on in parliament, probably as a single bill.
-
Polity: TPP, eh?, in reply to izogi,
Is copyright meant to be purely about incentive to create? If so, what’s the argument for extending the term retrospectively for already-created works?
Because moar profitz!
-
We now cannot prevent TPPA-nationals buying land in New Zealand unless it’s worth over $200 million.
Not just TPPA-nationals. Other countries with "most favoured nation" investment status, such as China and Korea are effectively grandfathered into this deal and specifically these investment rules. As it happens the Korean agreement already states that we must treat Korean (and therefore Chinese) nationals the same way we treat our own citizens in regards establishment and acquisition of investments. This is why the Government has been (quietly) saying they can't stop foreigners buying property in Auckland.
-
Hard News: The positive option of Red Peak, in reply to chris,
I felt “low stakes” to be loosely applicable here.
Yes, I agree the possibility of fraud in e-voting is much less of a concern in this sort of referendum. Or any referenda initiated by the public since they are non-binding anyway.
-
Hard News: The positive option of Red Peak, in reply to chris,
I watched the youtube video you posted, I assume you read the Berkman Center Research document I linked to. I am not suggesting denying you the right to vote via ballot box, it’s that creating the option for people with disabilities or anyone wishing to vote online doesn’t affect your vote.
Well, in that paper about the Switzerland implementation all they actually could say about security was that there didn't appear to have been any problems. But the absence of reported problems in one particular case says nothing about the potential for problems either there or elsewhere in the future. It's akin to saying "well I left my house unlocked today and it wasn't burgled so that proves it's safe to always leave the house unlocked."
I do accept that there are obvious upsides to e-voting. It would definitely make it easier for some people, and perhaps it might be reasonable to allow those people to use a less secure method of voting if they were prepared to do so. Though you were talking about it saving us billions, which would surely require widespread (if not compulsory) use.
You haven't given any counter to the numerous objections that have been raised in stuff I've linked to, so I hope you're now starting to see e-voting is not the obviously good idea it may seem to be on the surface (Stephen's flying car analogy is a good one). After all, remember Novopay? We couldn't even get a simple payroll system to work.