Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
no?
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
ACC levies in great danger of breaching the ceiling.
-
Polity: Refugees and aid - we’re laggards, in reply to David Hood,
I'm glad to hear that David, thanks, I was about to sound the bugle.
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
There was a distinct whiff of ‘budget’ about it all, and not in an endearing way.
It’s an awkward watch, they’re sitting so close together that if one were to yawn (which would be understandable) the other might need to visit the chiropractor. Not being able to see the sides of their desk gives the sense that it’s shot in a corridor or someone’s dining room.
characters
Indeed.
There was a segment this week where they were discussing fridges, not wanting a black fridge because Kim Dotcom has one was du Plessis-Allan’s punchline, because there’s always a punchline, when your show is little more than.
-
Polity: Refugees and aid - we’re laggards, in reply to Steve Barnes,
I thought we were better than that but then…. maybe not.
And this “If New Zealand were your home instead of United Kingdom you would experience 12.07% more of a class divide”. What in hades happened here?
-
-
Polity: Refugees and aid - we’re laggards, in reply to Daman Saini,
All I'm getting there is that migrants encounter the same or similar issues as the general population do and that refugees will most probably encounter the same issues as migrants. See Maz above.
Also you’ve provided no citations for those quotes so who knows where they’ve been. For linking, there is a key below the posting window.
-
If you’re serious about furthering the discussion
Drawing attention to the same underlying easily forgotten issues:
Per head of population, Australia has accepted about twice as many refugees as New Zealand. Same with the US.
Some reading here:
-
Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to chris,
Please note that no data transmission over the Internet or information storage technology can be guaranteed to be 100% secure. We continue to evaluate and implement enhancements in security technology and practices.
WE DO NOT GUARANTEE THAT FACEBOOK WILL ALWAYS BE SAFE, SECURE OR ERROR-FREE OR THAT FACEBOOK WILL ALWAYS FUNCTION WITHOUT DISRUPTIONS, DELAYS OR IMPERFECTIONS. FACEBOOK IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS, CONTENT, INFORMATION, OR DATA OF THIRD PARTIES, AND YOU RELEASE US, OUR DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY CLAIMS AND DAMAGES, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ANY CLAIM YOU HAVE AGAINST ANY SUCH THIRD PARTIES.
However, no method of Internet transmission or electronic storage is 100% secure. Therefore, while we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your personal information, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.
etc...
(a) means a communication between 2 or more parties made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication; but
(b) does not include a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so
-
Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to Steve Parks,
I believed Greenwald. It appears not enough other people did, or simply didn’t pay him enough attention, to make a difference to National getting elected and IMP getting routed. Dotcom acknowledged that he was “poison” to Mana. I expect that the same applies to Greenwald’s message. Is this anecdote sufficient?
So the measure of Greenwald’s effectiveness is not so much that in the poll above only 13.1% were disbelievers, the goal posts have shifted and the new measure is that Greenwald didn’t cost National the election? Surveillance isn’t a partisan issue. The original bill – in which the right of an individual to define what is private communication was usurped by the state in its exclusion of situations where one “ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so” e.g online, applicable to warrantless surveillance of New Zealanders – was introduced under Helen Clark in 2003. The revelation that this legislation is being exploited was hardly likely to win Labour an election. It's not as if a meaningful percentage of people really care anyway, they’re all over Facebook. As someone who believed Greenwald you no doubt would have caught Russell’s interview with him:
And apart from anything else, it’s not as if these activities have only taken place under governments of the right.
That’s a really important point. The GCSB is a long-standing agency, it’s a lot like the NSA. The NSA has grown more or less steadily regardless of whether there’s a Democratic or Republican administration, and of course currently in the United States there is a Democratic President who is perceived as more on the left than the right, and yet the NSA has grown dramatically over the last six years. These agencies really do exist outside the democratic process. They are in a sense their own autonomous beasts and election outcomes really don’t determine the extent to which they continue to grow, unfortunately. That’s part of the problem.
