Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
A law restricting urgency sounds (ironically) far less radical than an upper house.
-
In general upper houses seem very civics, and not particularly useful.
Yes, unless they're all legal experts, I can't see them driving quality into our laws. They're more likely to just slow things down that are against their own agenda. Which is sometimes good, sometimes not.
I've got a similar view of constitutions. They set up an authority (usually judges) who stand over the legislature and slow change down that they don't like. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. They're not magic things that make the system automatically better.
While a slower moving system is less inclined to radical bad changes, it's also less inclined to radical good changes. Our system is unusually fast, and changes can be "rammed through". But that does have the nice benefit that it is actually possible for a party to honor it's electoral promises, something that can be incredibly difficult when the system is so inherently conservative that no big change is really possible. Then you start getting government by a system rather than by representatives, and you place massive power into the hands of bureaucrats.
American foreign policy leaps to my mind. It seems like Presidents don't really have as much control over it as existing policy documents and the people who administer them do. It sounds like day one of a new Presidency involves being schooled that everything you promised is not really possible. Not because of some unexpected crisis, as in the case of when Lange took power here, but rather just because there's a powerful narrative about America's grand plans which transcend any President.
-
Ideas can move virally. But I think a lot of people are inoculated against optimism. I need to come up with a new strain.
-
Hard News: Because it's about time we…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Here's where I admit that we also have a Presso.
How heavy is it? I'm thinking hiking here.
-
Curious, anyone out there have a good word to say about Nespresso machines?
-
Hard News: Because it's about time we…, in reply to Russell Brown,
NO, YOU ARE NOT “FINE”. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A DELICIOUS FLAT WHITE FROM OUR KICKARSE ESPRESSO MACHINE. ALL TEN OF YOU.
My back-rod is even worse. People usually ask me for latte, knowing it's what I make for myself, and man does it take a long time to steam ten cups of milk. I really should put more thought into production lining it. It would probably teach me sympathy for Starbucks staff, at the very least.
-
If you're referring to a little stovetop espresso pot, I disagree. I use one of those every morning, and I don't think my coffee is bitter at all. (I like my coffee very strong, but I really hate bitter coffee.)
Yes, I'm still a bit mystified by those machines. I have had several over the years with varying degrees of success. I'm not convinced that I know what's really happening inside them. Is it water or steam that goes through? Or a mixture? I think the latter, which suggests that the temperature might not be nearly as hot as steam.
They take practice, but can produce good coffee. My reason not to use one is mostly convenience - the electric machine is faster to set up and put away. It does take up bench space, though. The stove-top is quite good if you lose electricity for some reason, can use the BBQ to make good coffee (and breakfast while you're at it).
-
Hard News: Because it's about time we…, in reply to ,
I think Starbucks already uses milk powder milk. All they need is to add an aroma of kerosene, then they'll have something nostalgic.
Classic.
We travel the world, New Zealand included, with Kopi Bali or Kopi Jawa packets (very finely ground dark coffee which you simply pour hit water over and wait two minutes before partaking).
Yes, I tend to agree that coffee snobbery can be self-defeating. It's a bloody hard ask at home during a party to serve 10 espressos/lattes, but not at all difficult to do with a largish plunger. It's still coffee, still tastes OK, many people prefer it. Even a plunger is overkill if you're traveling, a small sieve does the same job. Then there's the concept of just stopping before you get to the grounds, nearly the simplest method of all. Actual simplest is still always going to be instant, and there's times and places for it. Like at a picnic, on a boat, at a sports game, etc. It's not flash, but it's a lot better than it used to be, and often a damned sight nicer than coffee that's been sitting in a thermos for hours, and you can also serve tea.
Also sometimes nice is canned coffee, usually it's milky and sweet, but hard to beat for sheer laziness, easy to grab and run, and cold is refreshing.
But if I'm just all about the nice coffee experience, I still dig NZ/Ozzie style. You can tell effort has been made to make the coffee good. It's reflected in the price. Except at Starbucks.
-
Hard News: Because it's about time we…, in reply to Russell Brown,
The rest of Europe is a rip, though. Paid the equivalent of $NZ6 for a reasonably decent espresso in Amsterdam.
Yeah, espresso seemed to be the exception there, if you asked for coffee you got filter. Same in Germany. Admittedly, if I went to a coffee shop in the 'Dam, it was the standard euphemism for a place that specialized in other things. Which I also thought wasn't any better than NZ stuff, other than the novelty of having it in a coffee shop. It was a little alarming to be called a "connoisseur" by one of the local vendors, just because I wasn't wetting my pants with excitement like all the other foreigners, and was able to pass informed judgment after sampling.
-
Only marginally better, in my opinion, than instant coffee.
I dispute that. Instant coffee is, at least, nearly instant. Starbucks are as slow as a wet week.
My my - you paint with the stuff?
LOL, stoopid autocorrect.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 655 656 657 658 659 … 1066 Older→ First