Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Felix: If you want to pay David Haywood for using a five-word quote, be my guest (I'm sure he has something he can spend the money on), but legally, you don't have to. New Zealand and international copyright law recognises such a thing as "fair use" or "fair dealing" for the purposes of criticism, review, and news reporting. In NZ, for example, s42 of the Copyright Act 1994 allows fair dealing for the purpose of reporting current events provided the original source is acknowledged. Most bloggers don't reproduce entire stories; they quote short excerpts, and if they surround them with sufficient added content (something beyond the classic "indeed") and link to the original, they're legally in the clear. As for AP, or anyone else who wants royalties by the word, they can kiss my arse.
-
Meanwhile: a quick and dirty empirical analysis of Helen Clark's proposal to restrict liquor outlets in poor areas.
Short version: since liberalisation in 1989, there has been a massive explosion in outlets, but actual consumption has declined. And this decline in consumption has not been reflected in police violent crime statistics (though that could be due to P).
-
Sydney radio gave huge airplay to a study late last year that suggested moderate drinking, 3 - 5 standard drinks per night for men, on no more than 5 days a week, was within healthy limits.
I presume that's the liquor industry's definition of "moderate".
-
The Critic story on the Listener is excellent. It takes a very measured, intelligent look at the sorry state of the magazine, without merely slagging it off.
So, they'll be sicing the lawyers on them then?
-
I can do you a nice deal on Venezuelan Merlot. Picked and bottled by union labour.
Generally I prefer to buy NZ with wine. It's not like we're short of the stuff.
-
BTW, it's an indication of what's happened to freelance pay rates that my fee in 1993 was about the same as my fee at the beginning of 2008.
Which means your years of experience and loyal service have been rewarded with an effective pay cut of ~26%. Lovely.
-
One less reason to bother reading the Listener in the supermarket then. Now its basically down to Brian Easton...
-
Teh wimmins! They are crushing the poor men beneath their mighty Amazonian jackboot with their insistence on rights to personhood and bodily autonomy and whatnot!
Michael basset said it. It must be true.
-
What on earth makes you think any man has the right to force any woman to risk her life and health because he wants a kid, when she doesn't?
Because he's a man, and they're women, and that's just the natural order of things?
I think someone was correct in observing a few pages back that this troll's opinion would likely be different if the penis was on the other foot (so to speak).
-
Grant: Neither Labour nor National will want to. But the fundies may have forced their hand. We now have a ruling saying that large numbers of abortions are unlawful. If the law is not changed, then this will be used by the fundies to force the ASC to start withdrawing certification from consultants who certify "too many" abortions, or to impose a far more conservative interpretation of the law. Either way, it means women not being able to get abortions, and being forced to resort to other methods (smuggled RU486, Australia) or be forced to have kids. And that is going to put it on the agenda whether the major parties want it to be or not.
Our compromise is ugly, but most people seem to be happy with the way it works in practice. We don't talk about abortion, but you can get one if you want it (provided you jump through the required hoops). People are going to want to retain that effective access, and if it requires the law be changed to do away with the kludge and admit we want abortion on demand, then so be it.
This is the exact opposite of what the fundies want, of course. But then, they're not exactly noted for their intelligence.