Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
.
-
It's a reasonable compromise in light of what each party was originally asking for.
It strikes me that what counts as a compromise these days is often a solution which benefits no one at all.
-
I'm starting to understand how legislation like this gets through. Check out these geniuses:
National MP Katrina Shanks, allegedly "fairly savvy when it comes to computers".
[TL:DW? "file-sharing is actually an illegal activity". File-sharing is "quite different to copyright", etc. Just feel the stupidity.]National MP Jonathan Young
[TL:DW? The internet is basically electronic DNA, like Skynet from the Terminator movies, and was invented by Microsoft and Google. Also, Jules Verne was a famous painter. What a bell-end!]
[Seriously, don't bother watching this one; life's too short.] -
what can you do with a load of balls?
Heh.
-
Craig,
please tell me you considered calling this post:"Fuck Tha Police Association President".
-
might that have been the eponymous graphic designer?
Not quite sure what you're saying, but if it's that Frizzell himself designed the rugby ball logo, then I must say that I'd be just as surprised if that was the case as I would be if it was the case that he invented either end of this spectrum.
-
As for the lovely Dick Frizzell gear! I nearly spit my coffee all over the screen! Seriously - $72 for a t-shirt?!!! Yikes!
Well, you're also getting the work of a serious artiste, I suppose.
Frankly, I've always thought his work was crap; borderline offensive, to be honest. Not so much culturally, but artistically. I'm not at all against mashups of traditional and pop culture, if it makes some comment on either or both, but his creations seem to appropriate symbols more for sake of cheap recognisability than for any actual valuable message, IMO.
Take the rugby hoodie. There's infinitely more Art in the work of the anonymous graphic designer who created that rugby ball symbol than there is in chucking six copies of it together in the shape of a tiki face.
Just saying.
-
But I don't agree (paraphrasing @Sacha, say) that understanding the communication is all that matters. That is a bit of a slippery slope, and I'd hate to lose all those lovely distinctions that make our language beautiful. If we don't value them, they don't get passed on or picked up, and soon they disappear completely. Evolution is great, devolution ain't.
So, basically, you do care. ;)
-
Jumping on the grammar pedant train (Tech Writer, whaddaya gonna do?), I'm pretty sure "less than" is correct in that context. While it's usually "less" for mass nouns and "fewer" for count nouns, when you have a quantity of count nouns that's being treated as a single bulk amount, you use "less"
Except it's not being treated as a single bulk amount. If he'd said " the number of people is less than 6000" then sure, but "less than 6000 people" is counting discrete units so should read "fewer", I think.
-
I've confirmed that from launch TVNZ 6 and 7 listings were made available at no charge to newspapers and other media.
They could still have offered, say, a weekly PDF of TVNZ 6 & 7 listings. If they have, I can't find it.
BTW, TV Guide does publish TVNZ 6 & 7 listings. Not terribly expansive, but it is there.