Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Oh, nice one. Well done, everyone.
-
You can read the details on Wikipedia, but essentially the Federal Reserve is owned by 12 regional banks which themselves are owned by member banks across the US.
the entity is not part of the Government.
That's a bit misleading. At the top level it is entirely controlled by the US government. It's extremely regulated and the governors are selected by the President. Although it's constituted as a privately-owned setup, it doesn't operate like one.
I really don't know what Mark is implying.
-
-
It goes against every value that middle-class people are supposed to hold about property.
The middle classes have bettered their instruction.
M-O-R-A-L H-A-Z-A-R-D spells moral hazard both for the issuer and the consumer of debt. Bear in mind that in the US, you can walk away from mortgage debt (in some states) without any stain on your character.
-
I got an old Specialized mountain bike off Trademe and have not regretted it.
It has a very light frame for a mountain bike, and suitable gearing for Wellington hills (especially when combined with bike shoes and cleats). It does not have suspension (which soaks up your pedal power) or other frippery. Speed on the flat is not crucial in Welly, unless you have a long run around the water, which I don't. I have slick kevlar tires (off-road nobbles slow you down) and punctures are infrequent.
My one remaining desire is cheap pannier bags for commuting. I'm keeping an eye out, but new ones are very expensive and they seem to be quite over-engineered.
If you are very tall then getting a suitably sized frame is even more important than it is for us average people; getting the handlebars adjusted right as well as the seat is also important. This is where a local bike shop where staff know their stuff comes in, especially for a first bike.
-
Fletcher: yes, yes, and yes. Unfortunately, bailing out rich bastards by metaphorically printing money (moral hazard, anyone?) is US policy. And it has created the ever-larger series of asset bubbles of this decade. It started under Clinton/Greenspan, but it's been getting worse, and amplified by deregulating and putting hands-off stooges in important regulatory positions.
-
Argh, that last story from Finn brought tears to my eyes. It was so hopeful.
Dianne's story stressed that he was self-diagnosed and that the mental health team didn't consider Aspergers as a factor. What does the high-functioning person have to do to get an "official" label of Aspergers or autism?
-
no pain, no gain.
Well-played, sir.
-
So just to be clear Russell: is it ok to prejudice someone's right to a fair trial (eg all Lockett's co-defendants) as long as there is enough public interest? I fear you have left too much dangling here:
the issue of the public's right to know is not inconsequential
How far does "the public's right to know" go?
For one thing, it is in the public interest to have fair trials.
For another, suppose people who ought to have been convicted get off because they can no longer have a fair trial? How was the public interest served then?
the defendants and their supporters were also making extraordinary claims on their own behalf.
The one defendant I know personally was strongly advised by his/her/its lawyer to make no public claims, and did not. Nor did I see anything more extraordinary claimed with respect to that person than "X would never do such a thing, that is unlike the X I know."
it would worry me if the court were to apply a very harsh penalty
If a guilty person goes free because of this, or an innocent person has their reputation ruined, what sort of penalties do you consider appropriate? What kind of collateral damage to personal or public interests is acceptable when pursuing the public right to know?
-
"Band" would be much better translated as "ribbon" here.