Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There were two high-schools in Tokoroa, a reasonable distance apart (maybe 3 km?). In my final year, classics was offered as a bursary subject in the hour before the rest of the school started (basically 7:30-8:30) and the class was open to students from the other high school.
Similarly, the year before, calculus was offered in that time-slot, a couple of students from the other high school taking it to enable them to fit other subjects into their timetable (it was even taught by a teacher from the other school).
We got an extra study period during the day. I was quite grateful that they'd worked together to enable this to happen.
-
I've definitely met eighteen year olds who could be passed off as 12 or 14 year olds. Maybe not pre-teen though.
That involves an odd definition of "pre-teen".
Not so sure about peeing etc, is that illegal in NZ?
Depicting it is definitely illegal. Doing it is definitely not.
It's not that simple. It's illegal if the depiction promotes (or tends to promote) the activity in a way which is degrading or dehumanising. If the depiction is somehow empowering and not degrading, it will/should be treated like other porn. If it's part of pornography it will probably be illegal, as I imagine it will be dehumanising, but that's not necessarily the case. Pornography (or anything else) is also illegal if it encourages rape, but a depiction of rape in film is not necessarily illegal.
Similarly, mere depiction of underage sex (or sex between of-age consenting 16 year-olds) will not necessarily be illegal. If the film encourages the exploitation of children for sex it will be illegal, but the extent to which it deals with sexual conduct by or with children or young persons in a manner injurious to the public good is only a factor in determining whether something will be banned.
Outside material that encourages exploitation etc., New Zealand censorship law is highly nuanced.
-
And Key himself was talking about a "3 or 4 billion dollar package", wasn't he?
And Johnny would never tell a lie!
Should have called it a "6 to 8 billion dollar package": $3b-$4b in tax cuts, and $3b-$4b in tax increases...
-
Is a copy of the National party leaflet available online?
Yes.
Info and link here: http://www.national.org.nz/education/
And also a direct link to the .pdf of the brochure.
-
Certainly when I went to Victoria, the requirement to get into - say - Math 112 was a B or higher in bursary Maths. It wasn't "B in bursary Maths, unless you come from an underprivileged school, in which case we'll let you in with a C".
There's a difference between pre-requisites, and factors taken into account when selecting students for a limited-entry course.
When I went to law school at Vic, entry into LAWS 101 was officially to the effect that:
'B' Bursary required. 300 students selected. 'A' bursary guarantees entry, remaining places offered to students selected based on academic and other matters.
That is, the university might well have been more likely to offer a place in Laws 101 to a student who passed bursary with a 260 at Tokoroa High School, over a student from Scot's with a 280.
-
There's a very succinct solution to league tables. Require all schools, public and private, to reflect the demographic makeup of the nation.
Small problem - I can easily visualise the headmasters of Grammar or Kings obstructing the entrance to kids of Mangere & Otara who they haven't cherry-picked.
Oddly, I was looking at the wikipedia pages for these just yesterday: the idea that we'd forcibly transport North Island Māori to the South Island for their education just to even things out is kinda funny in a funny kind of way. Busing is just really weird - and the diametric opposite of the likely support I'd generally anticipate finding here for the right of puils to attend their local school.
-
I know the Oxford Dic falls on that side too, but I've always preferred Cambridge.
I believe Cambridge also uses the -ize suffix as its standard - i.e. look in a Cambridge Dictionary and you'll find modernise spelled m-o-d-e-r-n-i-z-e with "(UK usually modernise)" written after it.
-
<boggle> Buh? Whuh?
Okay, it wasn't most, but still... the Wired article.
A quote:
According to the study’s announcement, “Brasel and Gips found that people who fast forward through shows actually pay more attention to the screen than those who view at regular speed. That’s good news for advertisers, as long as their commercials feature their brands in the center of the screen.” According to the study, viewers pupils were dilated 99 percent during fast-forwarding ads as were are during the show, indicating that they pay nearly as much attention to fast-forwarding commercials as they do to the shows themselves. So as long as the branding is in the center of the screen, we retain it.
And another:
Lending credence to the idea that the DVR will not kill television advertising, as conventional wisdom suggested, a Nielsen study cited by the New York Times found that 46 percent of DVR viewers between the ages of 18 and 49 intentionally chose to watch advertisements rather than fast-forwarding through them.
-
Does anyone know what percentage of the various demographics actually watch broadcast TV?
I believe it's most people at most age groups.
I also recall research that suggested that most people watching shows on DVRs don't fast-forward through the ads.
-
Perhaps, just as we can now buy TVs with Freeview decoders in them, people could just be given the option of buying TVs with peoplemeters pre-installed =)