Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
<threadjack> Copyright thread hits page 100</threadjack>
-
Should Macintyre have stayed in that marriage because her wife had mental health issues?
Beyond Rankin's statement, I don't think it's been established that McAuley had "mental health issues", however you might define those.
-
I don't know why there's so much frothing about the HoS. It was never much of a paper and, while this is probably a new low, it's not that unexpected.
I doubt that Rankin had any idea what she was being set up for.
-
Isn't the most pertinent question one of 'were those who recommended and appointed Ms Rankin aware of her recent circumstances?' And if they were, why did they continue to see her appointment as appropriate? Why favour Rankin when there are so many other worthy candidates? How could they possibly think this wouldn't blow up?
This is a good point. I think you need look no further than the timing. What's happening in the House at the moment? Why, Auckland is being restructured under urgency (plus the Residential Tenancy amendment got pushed quietly through, I'm told). With no Select Committee process and no public consultation period, plus the Waterview Connection, based on dodgy figures. And what are the media frothing about? Christine Rankin.
I don't think that's a coincidence.
-
How the fuck dare you criticise any published writer?
Have I criticised your writing? No. I have taken issue with your opinions regarding the future of publishing and the nature of copyright. Your opinions on these matters are worth as much as anyone else's and no more.
Further, I have not sworn at you or belittled you. You have done this a number of times to me.
I said, a long time upthread, you didnt know the game of writing. That you knew diddlysquat about the writing game?
And you were wrong bot then and now.
I picked that from your comments. You are a callow nothing, and all the words you have posted (with the interesting exception about a definition) are - worthtless.
Your opinion is noted and disregarded.
-
So not a solution to that particular problem, but just another example of expensively moving the traffic jam a bit further up the road in peak loads - like the Puhoi motorway, enjoy it though I do.
Meh, not so much. Ngauranga and the Motorway along the faultline are issues with or without the Gully, but you can still get out of town via Johnsonville. Once you get past Mana and Plimmerton, you're stuffed until Levin. Centennial Highway (SH1 between Pukerua Bay and Paekakariki) is a dual carriageway with a barrier down the middle. Even a simple breakdown along there can cause issues. The road has had to be closed during some heavy storms as waves crash across it and litter debris about the place.
This is a significant issue for Welly as the trucks bringing food and other supplies use this route daily, and the city wouldn't have much reserve if there was a prolonged blockage.
It's not so much about moving the jam, but reducing the load on a single stretch, which will save wear and tear on both roads and give better options for travelers. SH1 will always have jams as long as it runs through towns.
-
OTOH, I bet I'm not the only person who has ever insisted that a trip from Wellington to the Mt Bruce wildlife reserve go via Palmerston North because she hates the Rimutaka hill road Just That Much.
It's a lot better now, Amy. Almost all of the hairpins have been carved away, there are 'slow vehicle' lanes in a number of places and you can travel most of it at a reasonable speed
-
AA Gill presents the case against the Greens in his usual subtle style
Wow. A long restaurant 'review' that has only a couple of paras actually about the restaurant. Bitter, much?
-
It doesn't state it exactly,
It doesn't say it at all. If you want to talk intellectual dishonety, look no further than yourself.
but I can't be arsed bending over backwards for someone who is quite willing themselves to make very ropey factual claims (with no acknowledgement of the stuff up by the way).
If you mean about the law, there is a post on the way, but it's been a busy day. You're doing quite well at the offensiveness yourself, for one so young.
Given that you were quite prepared to be utterly offensive because you didn't recognise quite a standard term of the art in the very field we're discussing, I don't think I need to apply the strictest standards of intellectual charity here.
Oh dear, haven't you got over that yet? I made a mistake, I apologised. You are now being more offensive, and also arrogant. Perhaps, by the time you finish your 200 level classes, you may be a little more familiar with the concept of knowledge that you haven't attained.
-
viz. the value of a functioning lighthouse bears no relationship at all to its scarcity, and even if it does the curve certainly isn't `inversely proportional'!.<quote>
And there's such a huge market in used lighthouses, isn't there, Keir? Or did you miss the amending of "value" to "price"? Are you saying that things that are really scarce aren't going to command a really high price? I'd refer you to the cost of oil as one example. What's yours?
<quote>That is to say, this is a public goods problem; the issue of scarcity doesn't arise, by definition. It is possible for something to be both ubiquitous and hugely valuable.
And yet no example. Light houses may be a public good, but it's odd to see you trying to align that to works that are under copyright.
Let's examine this "public good" concept, courtesy of Wikipedia:
In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rivaled and non-excludable. This means, respectively, that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good.
From a technical point of view, I could argue, based on this definition, that digital content is a public good - consumption (copying) does not affect simultaneous availability(non-rivaled) and does not exclude others from the entity. I don't think anyone, apart from some extremists who want to abolish copyright altogether (and I repeat that I'm not one of those), take this as a serious position. Rather, they see work under copyright as private work for the term of the copyright, and so does most law, as far as I am aware.
Wikipedia goes on to note:
In the real world, there may be no such thing as an absolutely non-rivaled and non-excludable good; but economists think that some goods approximate the concept closely enough for the analysis to be economically useful.
So, that's an interesting theory you bring to the discussion, but not one that has too much relevance to the mechanics of buying and selling stuff. Because we're not talking about public goods, but things that get bought and sold on a market.
By the way, the claim that copyright is a response to scarcity has at the very least one gaping hole in it
Please cite any instance of me saying that, with a link to the item, or you're just making shit up.