Posts by Lyndon Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thing that that worries me aboput the 'satire etc' thing (aside from making my actual job more fraught with terror) is the way it extends the rules from the content (eg it's contempt if you say he's corrupt) to the form (not using the feed) and, in that area, dramitically lowering the bar and upping the penalty.
I'm used to the idea of the filming rules, even if I don't agree. I don't want to turn parliament into a zoo, for similar reasons that I don't want free reign on MPs private lives - it would scare even more good people away. But I note the media deals with the latter fairly well without even the threat of rules.
But once the coverage comes out of the house in an acceptable form, it's my damn business what I do with it. Apart from the transparency, democractic and rights issues, that's just the way information works these days. Especially if it's webcast, though I note nobody has notably ripped off One's stream (perhaps their best protection is widespread lack of interest).
I also don't see any sensible reason for still cameras to be treated differently.
Judging by the debate MPs' other big concern about being misrepresented. Apart from saying, welcome to life, I have to say if that's what they were worried about they could just have said so. Some of them also seem to have the idea they can raise people's opinion of the house by suppressing bad coverage. They also seem to generally think
I noticed Mr Edgeler on Mr Espiner's blog saying the order actually passed unopposed. Perhaps the vote everyone quoted was the one for Nandor's amendment? And either way I have to ask - where was Rodney "people should be able to film what they want" Hide? (it sounded like he actually said that in the debate).
Scanning the report earlier I got the impression from the phrasing that the threat of the privileges committee was for the benefit of people who couldn't be hurt by withdrawing access to the feed - that is, for non-broadcasters.
Ridicule, incidentally, appears in the Britannica definition as a method of satire. It's particularly useful if you wish to satirise people for displays of arrogance and demands for unearned respect.
Speaking of which, time for some self-promotion:
-
Sorry but I have to ask...
Joseph Rex...
So, are you JoeKing?
-
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0706/S00414.htm
Australian Human Rights Commission initial response. Appears pleased something is being done, but why this?
-
I don't know whether it exactly has any bearing but here goes...
At varsity someone I knew went through the ingredients of three herb teas (I think it was) and checked them against the available literature.
As I recall, there wasn't always a strong relation between the contents and what they said they'd do. Also I think some needed pregnant-person warnings.
-
loltheorists!!
INVISIBLE FOURTH WALL
Funny as. It's like two of my favourite geekeries at once.
-
Here's something I prepared earlier about my Europe trip which I think was technically more holiday than OE.
The one thing I left out that I always want to talk about is the eurail passes. While it's possible to get from place to place free on them, if you try to book a journey from one country to another the only option that shows up for the people selling the tickets are direct and demand suppliments (fast rains/overnighters), and never mind what you little pamphlet says is possible.
It's not the easiest issue to debate across a language barrier.
Eventually, the guy in Milan went through what seemed like the timetables of three countries to work out we needed to change trains and where to do it. Yay him.
Earlier I'd spoken to some poor kid who was going to have to go home early because of having to pay for trains.
-
erm, like Hayden?
sorry lol!!!!!!!1111!!!!!eleventy!!!!!
-
FWIW Hayden's comment made me realise i should perhaps correct a couple of spelling errors: buckit
-
Don't tell my boss...
All your base...
I see what you did there
I gots a MP
mah buckit -
One must realise ones condition before one can do anything bout it.
If the condition is 'being a monster' where do you go with that? (Is that what you're talking about?)
Having enhanced self-esteem does nothing to control criminal behaviour (not surprising if you think about it) but self-loathing isn't a very good position to rebuild your life from either.
And if we imagine the conversation:
"Why did you do the bad thing?"
"Because I'm evil."
"What will you do to stop it happening again?"
"Not be evil."
... I don't see it working.I'm not an expert myself and I don't mean to go on about it. It's not a huge part of my point anyhow.
The thing that bothered me most was equating the behaviour with the person. It puts the blinkers on in many ways.