Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It has been one of the best things so far about the RWC that fans appear to be just happy to see good Rugby and happy to have a party afterwards. Chatting to couple of cops last Sunday and their biggest worry on opening night was the folks with pushchairs and very young kids getting overwhelmed in the crowd.
Overall the whole thing seems to be going very well. If some bits could be done better then that's because everyone is learning a bit as we go along, nothing wrong with that really.
-
Field Theory: Straight for the throat, in reply to Roland Maul,
My point is why he had to do the interview at all.
Because it's his job!
There are days when I feel like shit come 4pm but I have to stay to the end of the day to set the example for the others in the lab and to get the work done.
These rugby players are doing a job. They are paid, most of them full time pay at a decent salary (not excessive IMO). Since that money comes from advertising players are forced to give interviews in front of advertising hoardings as part of the job.
I have all the sympathy in the world for the man having to do that job at that time, I genuinely believe that he earned his pay at that time.
-
Hard News: Towards the Truth, in reply to Richard Aston,
The idea they are fighting to protect the freedom to tell the truth is a whole other debate. I wouldn’t make the link myself .
Two parts to this
The first is, unquestionably many of them believe that is one of the things they are fighting for.
The second is you are quite right, the reasons behind armed conflicts are not as simple as "truth" and arguably rarely about such things. Much more often political and economic.
But for the soldiers themselves those are not typically the reasons they have for being willing to fight and it is the soldiers who are faced with the dilemma.
-
I think it is an interesting insight into the military. They follow orders. But they are also real people and may not agree with those orders. And as they climb ranks they then must give orders that will result in their own soldiers dying. And even then they may be following political directives they personally don't consider "right".
I think it becomes a very interesting thing to unravel. Even the idea of "covering things up" become messy when in some cases exposing the truth may actually risk lives The dilemma faced by officers and soldiers in those positions is not something to envy, especially for someone who is fighting to protect the freedom to tell the truth.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I’ve worked for at least two largish NZ firms where I’ve never met my direct manager’s boss. It’s wierd and dysfunctional.
Don't be stupid. Management don't talk to staff, that would be demeaning for them. They might sometimes tell you what to think but they certainly don't want your thoughts. They're managers they don't need your input just your slavish loyalty.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to st ephen,
You call that an experiment? No replication, no control?
What you want more than n=1?? Whadarya some kind of referee or something!
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to BlairMacca,
i'm not a techie so maybe i'm just not in the target
No the point is Jobs doesn't appeal to techies, he appeals to users.
His contribution is best measured by the difference in apple before and after he left the first time. One man should not have that much influence but the experiment showed he did.
The interesting thing now will be whether the "company" has integrated his influence in a way that won't disappear with his absence.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Derrilin Webb,
just make an association from Key to mincing to (presumably) less masculine (or gay)
Pretty sure it was in reference to his performance on the catwalk which, rather than being an example of leet modeling skillz, demonstrated that he should stay behind the desk and resist all urges to compete for NZ Top Model. He really did mince, it was kind of amusing, and I'm sure Colin Marthura-Jeffree would have told him off. Nothing to do with his abilities as a politician.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
then voting for Green or Mana doesn’t actually detract from Labour’s chances of winning an election
I disagree. Regardless of how stupid it might be, the public likes to vote for the "winning team". That way they feel like winners. By splitting the leftish vote both Green and Labour are seen as losers even if they combine to form the government . And yes I think that is stupid but it is an effect you see as polls start to influence votes.
In some ways it is still a legacy from pre-MMP thinking and that fact that New Zealanders are still not really used to the idea of coalition government.
One way around it might be for Labour/Green to form a public coalition right now so that it becomes obvious to everyone that the National/ACT coalition is balanced pretty closely with the Green/Labour coalition. ie if you vote Green or Labour it is not a wasted vote and you can be a winner.
What that might require is a commitment from both Labour and Green to stand together on everything. For example the stupid idea of Goff debating with Key as if it was a two party race would be off the table.
Instead we have Goff led Labour (snort) pretending it is a major party and The Greens running around saying "well shucks we can do a deal with nice Mr Key - he even provides vegan food at his meetings so we're all good with that". And yes I was being deliberately insulting because when adults behave like five year olds they deserve to be insulted.
For Labour/Green it is about making certain National/ACT can't sell the country to the highest bidder and then retire to the Gold Coast, if that means setting aside pretenses about being a "major party" then so be it.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
if the question’s been framed as “do you prefer the Yellow peril owning all your shit or making some rich prick cry?” (and I can’t find the questions asked anywhere),
Voters were asked which they prefer; partial asset sales or Labour’s capital gains tax.
53 percent of respondents said they preferred capital gains tax
31 percent said they preferred asset sales
16 percent said neither, or didn’t know...
Just 51.5 percent of National voters like the idea.
32 percent – one in three National voters – said they preferred Phil Goff’s policy
16 percent said neither, or didn’t know.The question was reasonably neutral.
It wasn't 51.5% of Nat voters liking CGT it was 51.5% liking asset sales
Only a third of Nat voters like CGT, a large minority but not enough to concern National.It does remain puzzling that what is largely seen as a good policy by half of all voters (CGT) is not enough to cause voters to vote Labour. My personal feeling is it is a loss of confidence in Labour Leadership and since the election has very much been framed as about leaders ...