Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Blair didn't drive a car all the time he was PM.
One of the good things about NZ is how our politicians are more connected to real life and do drive cars, have mobile phones, travel on public aircraft next to ordinary people, and so on.
-
On the decade thing, we seem to be doing fine without an accepted name for this decade (I don't hear "noughties" or "zeroes" used much?).
I don't think either of the two first decades of the 20th century got named, although the 1890's and 1920's did.
-
Some footage of the fencing
You'd reckon we should rock at that. It's the old #8 wire tradition.
Are we good for gold in the mens barbed wire this year? And how do you think the humidity in China will affect the womens HotTape(TM)?
-
Was I the only one to have thought evil thoughts last week regarding TV1's Olympic coverage - specifically, the questionable human rights records of both host nation and (now resigned) local host presenter?
Nope, me too. Plus, it's boring as, and only relieved by the presenters equally desparate efforts to make us get behind New Zealand's hopeful for bronze in the reverse backward feltch or whatever.
The Tour De France is equally boring, but it's only held on the soil of mild human rights abusers. Also, it is useful to mankind in providing a venue for new and innovative pharmaceuticals to be tested on a range of willing subjects under onerous conditions.
-
One should remember that the vast majority of child abuse involves relatives and has nothing to do with the internet or pornography. Not to mention that the problem seems to be worse in places where there is very little connectivity - Pitcairn, for instance.
-
-
The Censor doesn't have to prosecute people and justify their decisions in front of a judge/jury you know.
The DIA provides a feed to various (all?) ISPs in NZ and can block any site, like [[http://www.dce.net.nz/|this].
They claim this is only for child porn, but the definition of "objectionable" goes much wider. A copy of Salient was censored last year. As people mention, a range of squicky activities are legal to perform, but not to describe or advocate.
Could a discussion like this one where people oppose censorship controls be "objectionable" - on the grounds that it indirectly advocates proscribed activity?
-
Compare with Helen Clark, of whom even "respectable" journalists have felt permitted to repeatedly enquire whether hers is a "real" marriage.
I'd question whether anyone following that track was a respectable journalist?
Surely people are fully entitled to choose their own style of relationship? For some it might be roses round the door, wifey looking after the kids in the traditional 50's manner. For others it might involve each person pursuing a fulfilled life without being joined at the hip.
I don't see that it's valid to judge people on that any more than on their sexuality.
-
Charlie Brookers piece in the Grauniad this morning is about how by writing an article that poked the nest of the mad-as-fuck (in this case 911-denial-denial), he substantially boosted the paper's traffic and search engine placings.
Perhaps this is the route for content - for Russell to make money fast he needs more mentions of Britney Spears nude videos, stores with New Zealand iPhones still available and the reason Antoine Dixon is being retried.
-
These people live in Auckland, right?
To quote Bill Bryson (on Los Angeles):
I think it's only right that crazy people should have their own city, but I cannot for the life of me see why a sane person would want to go there