Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Waterview Bore, in reply to Duncan McKenzie,
The project is a monster, but not as monstrous as it could have been!
What I have found interesting is the way the whole project has evolved over the decades. For the 40 something years I've lived in Auckland it has always been known that a motorway would run through Oakley creek. Early on the only concern was why were they delaying building what was "obviously" a good thing, it was only going to cost more later.
Then came the years when folks cleaned up Oakley creek and to be honest I thought "why bother, it's only going to be bulldozed away when they build that moterway?"
Decades passed and finally the NZTA decide to build that motorway after all. And sure enough the folks that had spent all that effort creating a wonderful green space faught tooth and claw to save it.
For me it makes sense to connect the moterway routes. It also makes sense to save the green space and build cycle and busways. For all the conflict involved over the years I personally think we will end up with both a useful piece of road (if anyone can accept such a thing could exist) and a greenspace and a cycleway.
Now can we please reach the same good compromise for the next project without having the bitter nasty fights along the way?
-
Cracker: Review: The Oyster Inn, Waiheke…, in reply to Damian Christie,
That’s how you do it.
Did you let the maitre d' know she'd done a great job? Tipping is one part but letting the house know they have someone great at the tables is great feedback as well.
Of course letting us know that Tin Soldier is a good place to go helps too :).
-
Back to Aaron Swartz. His death appears to have stimulated something very exciting.
It seems people's shock at his treatment and death might be enough to change scientific publishing. People were already tired of having their science restricted it seems many are taking this as the moment to end that restriction.
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
He seems to have been right about the slippery slope of civil unions leading to same-sex marriage, however.
It's a fair cop. Once people got proof that the end of civilisation did NOT occur as a result of civil unions - then they became much more comfortable about being fair to all members of society and to hell with the doomsayers.
Essentially his argument was "if we do the experiment we might prove me wrong and that would be bad".
(Now if only the public would notice that GMOs haven't destroyed the planet ...)
-
Cracker: Review: The Oyster Inn, Waiheke…, in reply to BenWilson,
That’s only 1 step away from going in and actually cooking it yourself.
Don't be silly. Watching someone work for you is much more enjoyable than doing it yourself.
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
a slippery slop argument
!!
-
Hard News: On Freedom, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Which is an abuse of discretion, to be clear, in the same way that the prosecutors in the Swartz case really should be considering just how much they fucked up here (and if there’s any justice in the world facing some professional/personal sanctions but.)
My understanding is that in order to progress their careers prosecutors want big flashy cases which they can be sure of winning. As much to do with the way they are promoted and paid as whether they are decent human beings.
-
Hard News: On Freedom, in reply to Russell Brown,
Basically, prosecutors do the sentencing by deciding which offence they’ll prosecute.
Which really should not be their job. Judges are meant to have that role. And the separation of those roles is meant to serve a very real purpose in the judicial system.
-
The other half of this story for me is about publication of scientific literature. Open access publication of science is starting to change the landscape but essentially the science community has been held hostage by major publishing houses for several decades now.
It is no easy or cheap task publishing scientific papers. Journals have/had to pay copy editors, physical printing presses, administration costs etc. They had to maintain databases of editors and reviewers, none of which is free. Some journals ran on cost basis, authors were charged the lowest possible page fees and libraries charged subscription costs, nobody made millions and people were happy. Those journals have embraced online publishing as a way to reduce costs and open access to the knowledge to an ever wider audience.
Open access publication still has costs, for example a recent paper I wrote cost 1600 Euros to publish in open access. That pays for the real costs of managing a completely online journal. BTW that money comes straight from our grants.
However some publishers recognised that there were millions to be made exploiting scientists as authors, reviewers and editors. Paying nothing for services and charging anyone and everyone as much as they could get away with, has proved to be a very profitable business model.
When Aaron Swartz set his laptop to download all those scientific papers from the MIT library system, he was effectively breaking open a box that should never have been locked. It’s doubtful those locking the box had any right to do so. I’m not sure if Aaron should be considered a hero but his actions highlighted something very wrong with the publishing of (mostly) government funded research. His isn’t the only action changing the way science is published and many would argue the changes would have come without him but I have to respect his actions and motives. It’s sad that he was persecuted for those actions.
-
Having laws that allow police and prosecutors to use "their judgement" and apply the law to those they deem "bad guys" is a very difficult situation. The potential for abuse is high, yet the ability for police to apply a little used law to get someone off the streets for either their own good or the good of others can be a good thing.
The stories of bad cops are easily found. The stories of good cops often never surface.
I don't think it's a reasonable political excuse to not develop better laws but I just don't know that I would do away with all police and prosecutorial leeway.
To me a part of this equation is having a robust, intelligent and active press. The public needs to know when the balance is wrong and also when it is right.