Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Some argue that the nature of the imagined catastrophe is so unrecoverable that even miniscule is too great
You mean like the folks who tried to have the supercollider in California shut down on the grounds it might create a planet-swallowing black hole?
Speaking of which, Dyan, what's your position on the LHC and similar devices? Is the risk so enormous and so under-understood that we shouldn't go there? -
And on the topic of assumed truths being countered by evidence that will probably just be ignored, a study just published in the BMJ points very, very strongly to zero correlation between exposure to radiation from cellphone towers and childhood cancers.
Not that this will matter a damn, of course - much like the vaccination/autism thing - but the evidence is mounting that low-dose exposure to cellphone signals is not carcinogenic. -
I don't like the fact that something went wrong with three cows who were part of an experiment, but what I'd like to see is oversight which ensures that nothing unethical was done, the animals were treated properly, the experiment was reasonable given the knowlege that we have and the potential for it to go wrong, and the correct process was followed to minimise harm.
From what Bart's said, that's exactly what happened. Sometimes shit just happens, no matter how well-intentioned the actions in the lead-up. Science is not a risk-free activity. A big problem is that people like Joe (I think it was Joe) want perfection in experimental outcomes and risk predictions. As was pointed out, if you know precisely what's going to happen you don't need to do an experiment: the definition of experiment, after all, is to carry out an activity to determine the outcome.
our collective scientific illiteracy is a problem
Some complaints to the Press Council and the BSA, upheld and with "stiff" penalties, for hysterical, unbalanced reporting on matters scientific would help. Slapping a few reporters for their breathless regurgitation of the anti-vaccination shit, for example, would've given a bit of space for counter points to be aired. A big problem is that all that most people get to hear about big-issue science is the heavily-slanted crap that passes through the MSM. Trying to enforce standards of real balance, not just pseudo balance, would be good. I point to the treatment of Croskie (he's the iSST front, right? I get him and McThicker confused) on Breakfast as a perfect example, both of the problem and of a somewhat-desirable outcome.
-
And we're surprised that Goff isn't whole-heartedly supporting Norman because...? This is the same Phil Goff whose views on civil liberties aren't too far removed from those of David Garrett and Garth McThicker, after all. I suspect the only reason he equivocated is because it makes Labour come across as less that entirely fascist.
-
Sacha, yes, they are. And I don't recall Labour having so many witch-hunts going on at any point in their last reign, never mind only halfway through their first term. I probably could've phrased things a little better.
-
So in the last six months we've had leaks on mining, Archives/National Library being merged, and now PEDA. How long'd it take Labour before they notched up three policy leaks? Midway through their first term?
-
Key apologising to the Chinese
Ick. I feel dirty by association, and I wouldn't vote for him if he were the only candidate in an election with mandatory polling.
-
Ah. No, I don't think that's controversial. Sad? Yes. Damning? Yes. Controversial? Not so much.
-
That it happened on Parliament's grounds against a serving Member "complicates things".
Not in terms of the crime committed, though. There's no "Assault on a Member of Parliament" crime, or an "Assault within the precincts of Parliament" crime. It's complicated by the role of the Speaker of the House, but not by the location and victim changing the crime.
-
Craig, as I said, I would rather things not go this way. In a perfect world the Chinese officials in question would've been kept in NZ while events played out, been made available to the police for questioning, and been given the appropriate penalty (probably diversion, as would be fitting for the severity of the offence and their likely status as first-offenders) for their crime following on from a trial by jury: so, six-to-nine months from now, assuming no delaying tactics by their legal counsel.
However, it's not a perfect world. Their status as protection officers or diplomatic visitors complicates things. The fact that they left the country the next day (Saturday, not yesterday, as it turns out) complicates things. The delegation's obstruction of the investigation complicates things.To counter your "we've seen the Police lay murder charges in under two days", how hard was it for them to identify the murderer? Is it a contested charge? Did they have to contend with special status under NZ law? Was there potential to create a royal political shitstorm?
I agree that it stunk to high heaven that the police didn't investigate the election spending issue, but that's ancient history. They decided what they did, for whatever reason, and I would've called it far less a pragmatic decision than one strongly influenced by not wanting to shit in their own lunchbox.