Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, in reply to Paul Campbell,
“GCSB must approve all changes to your network”
Not correct. GCSB must approve changes to broad categories of a network, but not all changes. You can re-number your network as often as you wish. You can change your network administration credentials without seeking GCSB approval. You can deploy whatever CPE you choose.
It's a bloody stupid rule, but it's not an absolute "You can't even pick your nose without our say-so" rule.“all your employees must receive a security clearance”
Also not in the least bit correct. A provider must nominate an employee (singular) to apply for a secret-level clearance, but there is zero requirement that all employees be even vetted, never mind granted a security clearance.
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, in reply to nzlemming,
Not as the USA does, where you get vetted and it stays with you as an individual. Generally, security clearances apply only to staff of a government organisation and are the decision of the Chief Executive of that agency and only for that agency.
Just like in the US, actually. A clearance for Department of Defence does not translate to a clearance for Department of Energy (home of the US nuclear weapons fabrication system) does not translate to a clearance for the Department of Homeland Insecurity/Department of Justice. They'll recognise each others' clearances for information sharing, but that's not the same as being granted a clearance for that agency.
There, as here, a vetting of sufficient recency can be "transferred" to another government sector for use in considering a new application for a clearance, but the clearance itself is granted by the agency.
-
Speaker: Sponsored post: Speed and Safety, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
The wide medians on the former are, I think, safer in an accident than a physical barrier
Hard dividers are used on the Autobahn, that most iconic of high-speed roads. They have buffer space between some installations, but that's more to allow for deflection I suspect since the barriers are often substantial. We could certainly handle a 110-120km/h limit on all of Auckland's motorways (CMJ excepted, per above) without any real issues other than the incapability of drivers to handle the complexities of joining and merging with the traffic flow.
-
Speaker: Sponsored post: Speed and Safety, in reply to BenWilson,
On a really, really good road, a speed over 100km/h could be justified. We just don’t have any roads like that.
Bollocks we don’t. The new motorways constructed in Auckland with hard dividers are equal in standard to any high-speed roadway in the world. Pretty much all the Auckland motorway network, in fact, is of a build quality that posted limits > 100km/h would be safe. The CMJ is built to a standard that could support a higher limit, but it’s posted at 80km/h because of the volume of merging/splitting that occurs through that section.
What we don’t have are country roads that are safe at their posted 100km/h limit. Many are barely safe at 80km/h, never mind anything higher. Big stretches of SH1 fall into that category.
Nationwide efforts need to be caveated to conditions. The law dropping maximum speeds to 40 around schools was a good idea. But even still, it’s nowhere near sufficient. Traffic engineers should judge each case individually.
An ordinary suburban limit of 50km/h increases pedestrian fatalities significantly. Between 40km/h and 50km/h is where the survivability of a collision drops dramatically. It’s the difference between the majority of hit pedestrians surviving and the majority dying. If the limit for suburban side streets were even lower, say 30km/h, most car vs pedestrian collisions would be survivable except for very unfortunate combinations of events.
-
Speaker: Why we can’t just fix secondary…, in reply to BenWilson,
lawyers and dentists might become a bit more affordable. That depends whether the respective unions would actually allow more of them to be produced.
Pretty much any muggins with enough neural power can become a lawyer, as routinely bewailed by those who want our universities to turn out higher numbers of "useful" graduates - code for the STEM subjects - rather than a seemingly-endless procession of accountants and lawyers. Access to law school is metered by the schools, who want to maintain some illusion of prestige, and if you possess a law degree and meet the character requirements you can become a member of the bar.
Dentistry is expensive because the education is expensive and the equipment is expensive. A dentistry student finishes up with a minimum $61k loan (2014 course prices for an NZ student), and is then staring at $50k-plus just for a chair for their patients to lie on! The pricing reflects the cost of entry to the profession, and there won't be a sudden decrease in those costs. Hell, if more people wanted to become dentists Otago might just as likely increase their costs; supply and demand, after all. As it stands, there are only 54 places for second-year dentistry enrolments each year, so even if people were inclined to apply and encouraged to do so through the UBI they would just be competing with others for a very limited number of educational vacancies. Maintaining high-quality educational outputs doesn't just happen. Medical education in NZ will never be open-entry for all comers.
-
Speaker: Why we can’t just fix secondary…, in reply to Moz,
0% up to the poverty line
NZ would have to define one, first. Pull-ya Benefit has strongly resisted calls to establish a formal poverty level.
-
Speaker: Sponsored post: Speed and Safety, in reply to Russell Brown,
“the more serious the crash, the more likely it is that speed was a contributing factor.”
But not at 108 in a 100. More like 108 in a 50. Or 150 in a 50. I struggle to recall a single fatal crash I went to (motor vehicle vs motor vehicle and/or stationary object) where the speed involved was not clearly, utterly, ludicrously unsafe. The clown doing 90-something through a Mt Wellington side street who hit a fairly small tree (the tree always wins. Always). The dick racing along Neilson Street who, according to the other driver, was doing at least 150km/h when he launched his car off the apex of the bridge at Onehunga Mall and proceeded to kill his three passengers (two instantly) by drifting uncontrolled into a power pylon a full 50 metres further up the road. The numpty doing north of 100 along Owairaka Ave who hit a blameless, oncoming car with such force that the speeding driver’s transmission was left a dozen metres back up the road from the car’s final position. The guy travelling city-bound along Sandringham Rd who lost it off the top of the Mt Albert Rd intersection at such speed that there was no need to cut open the car to free his deceased brother because the impact with a power pole tore the entire engine bay clean off.
And on, and on, and on.When speed is a factor in the seriousness of the crash, it’s stupid speed that no amount of advertising will lower. It might not be higher than the posted limit, but for the conditions it’s unsafe. Or it’s just so high that it’s unsafe anywhere other than the autobahn or a race track; and in the hands of these drivers, not even those places.
-
Speaker: Sponsored post: Speed and Safety, in reply to BenWilson,
Experience counts for a great deal, and people become naturally far more defensive as they get older. This is nearly indisputable from the actual crash statistics.
The statistics also show that younger drivers are getting a lot safer. That's that demanding testing showing up, the testing of which you are so dismissive. You have to live long enough to get experience, after all, and having to prove you've got a modicum of a clue behind the wheel is a good start.
In the end, the through driver in this advert does not demonstrate defensive behaviour. He's also not in the high-risk age group. So whatever you might think of my views on the level of training and testing to which older drivers have been subjected - and I would hope that you won't try to argue that "take it to the end of the road, do a three-point turn, come back, you didn't crash, here's your licence" is a comprehensive test - you are now trying to alter the presented reality of the advert itself and my views have no bearing on that reality.
-
Speaker: Sponsored post: Speed and Safety, in reply to George Darroch,
I’m utterly astounded by the comments of (seemingly intelligent and otherwise rational) people here that speed doesn’t matter.
In this advert it doesn't. The reality portrayed in this advert would not be altered by the through driver doing the speed limit instead of 8% above it.
We can inject all the "but he should be doing xyz" we want, but the advert portrays a situation where the laws of physics and human reaction times say that a T-bone collision would not be survivable for anyone directly in the path of the through vehicle. -
Hard News: The sphere of influence, in reply to nzlemming,
If Key said “only one minister has taken additional remuneration and that was Maurice”, then money has been paid.
But paid by whom? And was it authorised? If Key is implying that Williamson took a bribe, that's a really fucking big deal and although Key is a charlatan I don't think he's the kind of charlatan who would try and cover up clear criminal behaviour by another MP no matter how inconvenient it would be; the political cost of being found out would be far, far more inconvenient, not to mention the possibility of becoming the subject of a criminal investigation in his own right.
I took it as Key saying Maurice was the only minister who had received permission to receive income other than his ministerial salary.