Posts by Tom Beard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
that said, people have to have roof over their heads
Absolutely, and I agree that we need many more homes. They just don't need to be spread out on quarter acre sections for as far as the eye can see (and the SUV can travel).
It's a pity that NZ doesn't have much of a tradition of urban (as opposed to suburban) living. Most of the recent medium- and high-density developments are developer-driven rather than design-driven, so they don't exactly set a good example either.
-
Let's run a sweep: how many more news stories will we get this year about the unaffordability of houses without hearing the dreaded words Capital Gains Tax?
We'll never hear it from these sources, because fundamentally they don't give a monkey's about whether Joe and Jill Middle-Income can afford their first home. Hugh Pavletich and his buddies at "Demographia" are lobbyists for suburban property developers who are keen to make profits as quickly and easily as possible by turning rural land into a sea of McMansions, without having to pay for all that pesky infrastructure. They were at it exactly a year ago, and they're at it again.
I see some momentum gathering for the argument that the solution might be to stop the artificial land-rationing imposed by planners in cities such as Auckland. "Look at Houston," they say "It just keeps expanding outwards, without limitation, and houses are much more affordable there."
Oh God, I hope not! Just how "affordable" will it be to live on the outskirts of Houston (or north Auckland, or the Kapiti Coast) when petrol prices start going up for good? Whether or not practical and geographic limitations (such as water) make it harder here is beside the point: sprawl is unsustainable.
And I wonder whether the reason that Houston is apparently so affordable is that all that mind-numbing placeless suburbia has turned it into a soulless shithole that no-one wants to live in?
-
My third thought? I already have one of these, it's called a Treo, and keys + stylus make it damned easy to use.
My thoughts exactly. My iMate plays MP3s. And is a half-decent phone. And lets me take photos, edit them, upload them to my blog, compose music, edit spreadsheets, read maps, write documents, play games, surf the net, create graphs, store addresses...
I guess I've just never got what's supposed to make iPods so much better than other MP3 players, so the iPhone just doesn't excite me. What we really need is for smartphones to get hard drives and proper cameras.
-
Has anyone had a play with the conspiracy theoryJava map function yet?
To be fair, that sort of "conspiracy" analysis is based on left-wing sites that have been around for a while: things like "They Rule" which allow you to look for the linkages between the politically and financially powerful. Of course, those linkages are based on real data (directoriships etc), rather than some incredibly vague criteria (what exactly is the link between REM and Pearl Jam?). And They Rule has better graphic design (well, you know these pinko lefties). And oh yes, the people they're talking about have actual power and money and stuff.
-
Sale restrictions may well be a useful addition, but if your $2 supermarket brand paracetamol is the same as any other, then so should BZP be.
I agree totally, but it's not what the pro-ban lobby are interested in. People enjoy BZP (apparently): they don't enjoy paracetamol (AFAIK). If you use a drug to fix something that's wrong with you, that's fine. If you take it for fun, that's abuse. Unless it's alcohol, tobacco or caffeine, of course.
I wonder whether there's some deep metaphysical fear behind such thinking. The very idea that such exalted things as human perception, mood and consciousness can be affected by something as basely material as a pill is disturbing and disgusting to such people. To even contemplate the idea that joy, sadness or mystical sentiments might be, at some level, just a neurochemical reaction...
-
I haven't laughed so much since someone wrote to the Dom describing Michael Bassett as "a left-wing columnist". "Left-wing"! "Columnist"!!
I love one particular description on the site:
This section examines activists for leftwing agendas and causes -- egalitarians, socialists, and opponents of American "imperialism."
Egalitarians? Egad!
-
There's still useful and interesting stuff in the Listener, but I find that their cover articles are more and more targeted at middle-aged, middle-class, middle-NZers with a mortgage and kids. I do not personally give a monkey's about house prices, cosmetic surgery or the NCEA. Some of the reviews and columnists are still a good read, though, and I'm not exactly going to buy the TV Guide or whatever it is.
There must be a market out there for an intelligent, leftish national mag that's not exlcusively gunning for the Peter Dunne demographic. Surely?
-
Che asks what these people are like and Robyn gives an example that could be taken from my own extended family :-(
Sigh! Back when I was making an attempt at being a family man, my stepdaughter was thinking of teaching her baby daughter a language. She asked whether I knew anyone who spoke Italian or Spanish "or anything really, it would just be great for her to learn another language". "How about Maori?" I suggested, and she replied "Aw, I'm sick of all that fucking Maori crap being shoved down our fucking throats!"
Shudder.
-
I realise that urbandictionary's main strength is its informality and openness to offensive definitions, but there comes a point when the sheer volume and vileness of "definitions" is clearly motivated by hatred rather than the need to record the facts of slang usage or to make a reasoned argument. Their terms of service clearly state that their content
is frequently presented in a coarse and direct manner that some may find offensive. If you do not consider yourself an appropriate user or are offended, do not visit.
But on the other hand, they go on to say:
Should Urban Dictionary suspect that a user has submitted misleading, incomplete, libelous, slanderous, or deliberately inaccurate information, Urban Dictionary reserves the right to prevent that user from submitting further definitions.
Most of those outbursts are clearly "misleading, incomplete, libelous, slanderous, or deliberately inaccurate", but is merely preventing users from making further submissions (when they can just create another user account) enough to make it worthwhile reporting them? However, under section IV.2,
Should any submissions be found by Urban Dictionary to be unacceptably offensive, in violation of copyright law, or containing unacceptable material, Urban Dictionary may remove the submission without notice.
If some of those "definitions" don't count as "unacceptably offensive", I can't imagine what would!
-
sweet jesus... that is the most jaw-droppling offensive site i've ever seen... someone must have got the bitch-slap from another kid at the kindy.
I followed the links to see what other definitions most of those poisonous people had written, and the vast majority of them had written nothing else. How odd: so many people bothered to create a username on Urban Dictionary just to add one offensive definition? It's almost as if a single disaffected sicko set up a whole bunch of usernames, or perhaps even set up a "redneckbot" to do so automatically.
A hint: anyone can click on the up or down thumbs (only once per definition), so with any luck, if enough sane people visit the site the twisted trash will sink to the bottom. Then again, is it worth the effort?