Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Google seems to have been around since the late 90s- but did it become a verb before 2002? It’s been a big part of the last decade. Also seems remarkable that youtube didn’t even exist until 2005. Like fish schwimmen in the ocean, they both seem too big for us to even notice, now.
etaBuggerising with an s! The retro word of the year?
Yes! Another person who finds themself stubbornly re-correcting/disabling/cursing devices/software with presumptive US spellings.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
No :)
But if they are going to lead the way and NZ investment follows? Maybe that isn't so bad.
Cos I don't think we should leave it to Fonterra, either: we'd wait forever. And I doubt Westland Milk Products are looking in the right direction. -
From Malik:
This is good:The real indictment of the press today is not that it is too powerful but that it is too cowardly. It fails to probe deeply enough, it is unable to ask the difficult questions of those in power, it refuses to challenge received wisdom. In that sense the problem with the press is not that it is too strong, but that it is too weak.
Why the press is so weakened is interesting but not really the point... though a sense of weakness is an interesting explanation for the bully-boy behaviour.
But I think this is the crux of Malik's argument, and it's unconvincing:There is, of course, a big difference between voluntarily offering up intimacies and such intimacies being made public against people’s wishes. Nevertheless, the tabloids have coarsened our culture largely because an increasingly coarse culture has provided new opportunities for the tabloids – and not just for the tabloids. Tackling the issue of press ethics, in other words, restraining gross intrusion into people’s privacy, means far more than simply reining in the newspapers; it means transforming the culture within which they operate.
Surely restraining gross intrusion into people's privacy by the press does involve 'reining in the newspapers'?
It seems a weakness of Leveson's report is a failure to deal with internet (and wider) culture at all. Dismissing on-line media is unhelpful. But Leveson was looking specifically at 'gross breaches of privacy' and the journalistic (lack of) ethics involved. Not with changing the UK's current cultural norms. -
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
Farmer Green would appreciate any feedback you might offer, particularly on the economic aspects of the drastically lowered stocking rate, and the added-value proposition.
I'll bite :)
Given that: lowered stocking rates would be far more environmentally desirable and; adding value in NZ is great for the NZ economy and; you've demonstrated that on a small scale this is possible- it still doesn't follow that the whole NZ dairy industry can do the same.
The markets may not be there- or stable enough, or willing to pay as much on a far larger scale, or able to be built up and well-managed and capably marketed to by Fonterra, or- there are many imponderables.
Such change would need to be at a thoughtful rate. To change even 10% of the current industry would be massive (and risky.) Definitely a road worth trying. Getting a far higher return per unit by adding value would be win-win for NZ. But it's by no means a sure bet.
I'm sure you realise that too :) -
Yeah, it's fair to say the toxic UK press culture is a mix of their intoxication with power and rampant disregard for current law. Not helped by collusion tacit and real from elements of the police and politics.
But the wimpy self-regulation hasn't helped. Independent regulators with some teeth: worth trying. -
The same British papers that are so terrified of evil ‘regulation’ (ooH! ooh! jackboots! slippery slope to evil and no way back!) have been pretty laid back about everyone else’s freedom being regulated with ASBOs and drug laws and surveillance cameras up the wazoo.
Ignore them. Regulate them, here and in the UK. Let such regulatory bodies be independent, as free of politics as possible, required to give free speech the benefit of any doubt, and assessed every three years for pernicious effects and unintended consequences.
Who wants to get old waiting for the British Press to embrace being reined in? -
Thanks for the photos- wish I could have been there.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
Why would you want to do that?
Cos it’s kinda boring going over and over the same ground, round and round in the same circles.
Doubt is always possible, certainty is always elusive (and paradox stalks the hills!) But this ‘debate’ has been going on for thirty-odd years, and all climate deniers bring to the table is scepticism. That wears thin.
(Not that I’m labelling GF a climate denier- you seem to indicate hereit is greatly to be hoped) that the gradual warming since the end of the LIA continues unabated
that AGW is at least on-the-cards.)
-
“clearer rights to take and use water within set limits” makes sense (it also makes a nonsense of Mr Key’s ‘noone owns the water’). But while there are a bunch of recommendations (125 pages- I’ve only quickly read about 5!) fair and balanced (TM) allocation of water rights is not straightforward.
It’s also an interesting exercise to read the pasts on allocation substituting the word ‘gold’ or ‘cash’ for ‘water’ :) -
Lots of cheap media graduates too. It's a mystery to me.