Posts by slarty
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Absolutely. Happy to.
'The quantum of the new road use charge was an issue..'
They are being a bit technically correct, if they are aware of it. Quantum refers (in this context) to a change in the amount. A very small change if one were to get heinously anal about it. Delta would be even worse...
My personal hates:
"off of"
"paradigm" instead of "model"
"agile"
and #1 on the list
"can I get" instead of "may I have" (I can even cope with "can I have" at a push...) -
Loved it all. And the metaphor.
It makes me sad when people treat me as though I'm stupid because I can't move my body properly.
And when I was 9 I hated the fact that the English kids (at school, in England) beat me up because I had a Kiwi accent. But I grew up and got over it.
Your daughters friend is growing up painfully, like we all do because kids are horrible. But sounds like their intent is good.
And yes I hate seeing my offspring getting hurt and I get all sensitive and protective etc.
-
PS. Mr Poole, fancy a competition? You design it, I'll break it :)
-
I agree - like I said, I like the ritual of it. The machinery is an irrelevance.
I reckon that such a basic process doesn't need to get fancy. Let's face it, the only reason some people like the machines is because you get a faster result... and what, precisely is the benefit? The media like it, the candidates are put out of their misery a bit quicker.
But in the end the actual "handover" isn't any faster. We're only talking a day or two. Perhaps we should just consider that to be part of the theatre of the whole thing.
Then when you add in the risk associated with more "sophisticated" techniques... well, it's probably not just that it's not worth it, but is actively damaging to the integrity o the process.
-
Thanks!
-
... and here's someone who vaguely knows what he's talking about discussing one aspect of the electronic thing...
-
Very stimulating thanks - I shall wear a better disguise next time.
Got me thinking: where did that "don't discuss politics, religion or money" line come from? I was told it was "rude" when I was a kid.
If I were a conspiracy theorist (and I'm not - believe me, if it's a choice between a conspiracy and a cock-up, it's likely to be the latter...) I would say that discouraging people from talking about the key things that govern their lives would serve only the embedded power structure.
And that means disconnected, uneducated voters.
And one other thing: in my mind a liberal is someone who believes in minimal state intervention in peoples lives... not someone on the left...
Liberals are the opposite of conservatives, not the right (I'm sure someone will point out the link to that 2 X 2 grid thingy that I can't remember the name of...)
-
Love your work!
I think it's important that there is a bit of effort required. I ritually have voted in every election (in the three countries I've lived in). Never miss one. Even if I just spoil my paper (which I used to in the UK - bloody FPP!)
It's not just about numbers - it's about real participation.
-
We're discussing drugs and the news media with a panel comprised of Ross Bell of the NZ Drug Foundation; Police Association spokesman Greg O'Connor; and Nandor Tanczos.
Oh how I wish I could... I shall look forward to Greg's points with eager anticipation. I'd hate to be in his position: reminds me of Mohammad Saeed al-Sahhaf.
-
Actually, from a certain POV (and a conservative one, I would argue) laws that are unenforced (or not applied to all without bias, fear or favour) or unenforceable are truly destructive of civil society -- of which general respect for the rule of law is an integral part.
I'm in total agreement with you on that sentiment, Craig.
I do understand the necessity of integrity for a society to function. I like the old fashioned words like universality, pernicious and capricious in such a context. But what I'm saying is that the practical implementation is much more complicated.
I guess there's a couple of bits to this.
Not enforcing is different to "not applied to all without bias, fear or favour". The rule may have effect or coverage universally, but the implementation on the ground may be varied. Good examples are what can be carried on to aircraft, various stationary and moving vehicle offences etc.
Enforcing means you do it every single time (zero tolerance?) and it has a complex implication - it means you need to construct highly detailed rules that cover every situation (Bentham called this monster the "Pannomion"). You end up with black letter law being used extensively. I think it's fair to say the societies that get closest to such a mechanism are probably not ones you'd want to live in... The practical outcome is a never ending game of chase, with people arguing "you didn't specifically say I couldn't, so I did". And it absolutely fails to deliver a fair and just environment.
The second aspect is that for it to work, you would have to have a mechanism to allow retrospective law change to take into account situations where the rule mis-fires, and you would need to continuously refresh to take into account changes in the mood of the people over time.
Like I say, I like our system of checks, balances and transparency. Those principles are far more useful than rigid adherence to universal implementation.
I suspect we're saying the same thing, but from slightly different perspectives.