Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
This was compared to strapping a chicken to a table, shooting it at point-blank range with a shotgun, and concluding "shotguns kill chickens".
In order to test this, I went out into my formerly well chickened yard with my faithful 12 gauge and conducted some experiments:
- point-blank, chicken restrained - successful kill, meat not suitable for consumption due to excessive shot content
- 10m, chicken restrained, successful kill, again excessive shot content, possibly smaller choke could be considered in future
- 20m, chicken restrained, successful kill
- 50m, chicken restrained, successful kill on second shot
- point-blank, chicken unrestrained, successful kill, see above on shot content
- 20m, chicken unrestrained, successful kill
At this point experiments had to be abandoned as remaining chickens were cowering in coop, and were thus no longer capable of individual targetting.
I would however conclude that "shotguns kill chickens" although they are not perhaps an optimal method should one wish to eat the meat.
-
If parties (and others) can just pay for political advertising on TV, then it's pretty clear that parties such as ACT (using money from big business) and small religious groups (using money extorted from their followers) will be able to spend up disproportionately.
If on the other hand TV advertising was given out in equal share per party, then any party getting 500 signatures (or maybe anyone standing as an independent MP) would get the same amount of TV advertising as Labour or National.
Neither of these seems fair to me, so the current system appeals as a compromise. (Of course, if you believe that the rich have a right to spend big to buy elections, then that trumps everything).
Alternatively, banning political TV advertising would indeed be a good alternative option.
-
your definition of 'Hispanic' doesn't, like, include Spain.
That's a matter of some debate in the US.
-
I'm not sure. Would that be deleted unobtainium?
-
You dang pinkos, everyone knows that pi is four. Thats the law in Indiana.
-
If you torch an icecream van, you'll get a lot of melted ice cream.
-
Hamilton is not in Auckland
Give it another 50 years and it will be.
-
I'd like to suggest that readers subvert the competition by sending in anti-logos in their thousands.
Something like a soviet-style image of Rodney, with the words "My City. My Vote. Your Problem".
-
I can't believe I read this.
For those of us whose communities are *literally* being wiped out by inhalant abuse, making light of the problem in this way is insulting. And inappropriate. And bad.
Enough is enough.
Won't somebody think of the children?
-
Firstly, I'd suggest that we could process passengers a lot more quickly (and at *less* cost) if we chilled out a bit and stopped assuming they were Evil Foreign Terrorists.
I've been to many countries, and in the sensible ones (mostly non-English speaking) they just check the passport and picture, perhaps stamp it and you're done. Unfortunately NZ (like Britain and the US) has its customs staff trying to be Sherlock Holmes and trap some backpacker into admitting that they might be going to work illegally in a bar, smuggle a quarter of weed, or otherwise destroy the fabric of NZ society.
Secondly, I don't see why, if the cruise ship industry feels better facilities are needed, it can't build and pay for them itself. Why does it need a public subsidy? Some NZ industries, like IT, manage fine without public handouts. Tourism (in particular) seems to be different.