Posts by Steve Barnes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: An open thread while I'm down…, in reply to Christopher Nimmo,
how good he is with the electorate, how he turns up to everything, etc.
I have heard, on good authority, that the Honourable Member would turn up to the opening of an envelope. I do not, however, have any information on the contents of said envelope.
-
Hard News: An open thread while I'm down…, in reply to Christopher Nimmo,
Most don't vote for him.
iPredict tends to differ
Unfortunately. -
Hard News: Friday Fun with Brickface, in reply to Sacha,
hash comes first
That's how you make mistakes ;-)
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
The reason why not has to do with a narrative by which disaster can only be dealt with in a top-down manner, with ordinary citizens expected to give due obesiance to authority.
As in Pikes River Mine, where I still question why the police were even involved at a stage before any law seemed to have been broken and where the needs of the situation lay outside their accepted duties, i.e. catching crims, as they say.
-
:-#
-
And more from the "Who the fuck do you think you're kidding" file;
Adidas New Zealand is defending the high cost of All Blacks jerseys in the wake of revelations the same jersey is selling for half the price overseas.
The Rugby World Cup edition of this year's jersey costs more than $200 in most New Zealand retail outlets but the same jersey can be picked up for under $100 online in the United States.
Adidas New Zealand's country manager David Huggett told RadioSport that the cost depends to some extent on currency fluctuations.
"The price we set in New Zealand is relative to the local market and the price in which they pay overseas is largely driven against currency fluctuation which has changed quite significantly over the last couple of years.
"If you go back two years ago the cost of the All Blacks jersey was cheaper here in New Zealand
Right. The US Dollar plummets like a stone as our Dollar rockets to all time highs and it is still worth nothing if you want to buy an All Blacks Jersey.
Yeah, right, pull the other one, no, not that one... this one... -
Field Theory: All Blacks v South Africa…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Show me where in the rules it says you can’t?
Nah, the NZRB will, in all likelihood, behave like spoilsports and change the rules to suit the commercial aspect of the game and only allow sponsored weapons.
One thing that has intrigued me for a while is the attitude to the "Drop Goal" which now, well for the period of the tournament, be acceptable.
The commercialisation of the game has devalued it somewhat in my opinion and I have to ask why, in an age of satellite TV and instant replays, we spend horrendous amounts of money on stadia and the logistics of moving people around to watch games in nothing more than a business park?. Purists will still frown at someone referring to a "Rugby Pitch" and insist on the term "Rugby Field", Paddock being acceptable in some circles.
I would love to see more provincial rugby televised from places like Simpson Park in Morewa and not just on the Rugby Channel, than images of corporate box dwellers lording it over the poor punters drinking standardised beer from plastic safety glasses.
Yeah, bring on the drop goal, it's in the rules but let's bring the game back to the grass roots, bring it back to the people. Who knows, maybe we can bring the whole country back to the grass roots and tell our corporate masters that their time is over. -
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Katie R,
Then you have the flipside with climate change where there is extensive data showing significant climate trends yet the policy makers waste their time debating whose science is right because it is too costly, or annoying or threatening to big business to actually make a decision either way. In this case the risk to the planet of inaction by default is essentially ignored.
Which brings me back to a point I made on another thread We have to question the, dare I say veracity?, of the risk to peoples safety in the central city of Christchurch. It seems patently obvious to me that the cost to the local economy, let alone the commercial cost to many individuals and businesses, has not been served well by the blanket ban on entry. The perceived risk, in may cases, has far outweighed any consideration of that cost. I am not saying there is no danger from collapse of many unstable buildings but surely there was and is, a more considered solution that could be enacted to satisfy both risk to people and risk to possessions, commercial or other.
So why, in this instance, has the perceived risk outweighed the cost?. -
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Ignorance is bliss...
In which case, ignorance is strength. And freedom is slavery. And war is peace.
Which also explains why PAS has its fair share of grumpy buggers.
;-) -
Hard News: An open thread while I'm down…, in reply to Sacha,
What's the stature of limitations on perversion of justice in the face of a clear admission by Meurant that he did so?
As far as I can make out there is no statute of limitations on any criminal act in this country. There are, however, cases that the police do not consider pursuing, especially if they are "of a historical nature" and involve police officers.
