Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Lucy, that's very interesting. Good on Angus (it was Angus, wasn't it?) for that kind of foresight. Shame we don't see that kind of thinking from more industry leaders.
That aside, though, we should be encouraging more companies that do the kinds of things that Tait do. Losing the Motorola facility should've been a big wakeup call on all kinds of things (tertiary science and engineering, R&D funding...), but it seems to have been ignored in the hollus bollus of BAU for the pollie tubbies. Especially National, it appears.
-
if the world economy crashes then being a producer of foodstuffs and NOT consumer electronics will turn out to be a good thing to be. Provided we can afford to ship them to market that is. How good is Pinus radiata at being turned into tea clipper style ships?
And, pray tell, how much food will we actually be able to produce for export? As good as we are at producing primary products, we've a very small land area with an even smaller percentage that actually produces for export.
Yes, if the world thoroughly self-destructs and we're all back to wearing natural fibres that we wove ourselves, we're in a good position to be self-sufficient in basic foodstuffs. But at that point we may well find ourselves invaded by China, or Indonesia, or some other country that's incapable of self-sufficient production. So what's the benefit?
Ignoring that distinctly dire prediction, which I discount almost out of hand because the fall would have to be so far, and so fast, as to likely result in a nuclear war, we're better off trying to drag ourselves out of the primary products reliance that's been cultivated for so long. Hocking value-added products from primary produce, sure. But milk and cheese aren't a great long-term strategy, because there are plenty of countries out there with much more land, quite prepared to dedicate some of it to their own dairy herds.
-
Isn't that what ACT's about - too bad if Telecom was a ruthless and somewhat shonky monopoly - "Let no mere mortal put asunder what St. Roger hath created" ?
Yeah, pretty much. "Free market uber alles", says Sir Roger, and his faithful "Act-olytes" bow, and scrape, and fellate the great man, for what he says must be true.
The notion of market failure is totally alien to Act. That the market could possibly not produce a perfect outcome is anathema to them, but Rodders is left only with the "property rights" hymnal in the face of a unified Parliament that has declared "the market is broken".
-
he went off about the property rights of Telecom and its investors
Yes, that is certainly one of Rodders' pet ideologies. Never mind that Telecom's shareholders have been thoroughly reimbursed for the purchase cost at least twice over by way of monopoly rents. Never mind that we were demonstrably being held back by the stranglehold over the market that Telecom enjoyed.
I look at what's happened in the last two years, since unbundling was announced, and I'm staggered. We've come so far, and I'm left wondering just where we'd be if this had happened in '01/'02, or even better, if, and I know this is way out there in thoroughly-drug-fucked-cuckoo-land, Maurice had done his fucking job and clobbered Rod with a heavy, nail-studded stick in '98/'99.
On the R&D credits thing, while I was never going to give National my party vote (my Epsom electorate vote is a whole different story), that was just the last straw. It's an incredibly stupid, totally short-sighted move. After the right's constant hammering of how terrible NZ's wage situation is, National effectively announces that economic salvation shall ride forth on the back of a white steed that goes by the name of "consumer spending". Never mind that anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economic policy knows that you grow modern economies through the value of your exports, not the value of what your consumers spend. We're a low-wage economy with a distinctly-unhealthy reliance on primary exports. That's a situation that encourages a race to the bottom for wages. Whereas if we can encourage the likes of Tait, and Rakon, we've actually got companies making valuable, unique products. But, hey, National doesn't seem to think that matters a damn because we'll just get consumers to spend us out of this recession. Until the next time our economy gets into strife because it's all built on a house of credit cards.
-
From here on in, if any party wants to increase spending they better have a clear and bullshit-free explanation about how it's going to be paid for. AFAIC, both National and Labour are getting an F, and don't have a lot a time left to improve their grade.
National hasn't even turned up to class. Labour's already made it abundantly clear that any new spending beyond what's already been announced will be paid for through deficit expenditure. After nine years of being "National", they're finally reverting to being "Labour" for fiscal purposes. National's got a tough act to follow, because Labour's got a solid history to point to. They've paid down national debt, and run budget surpluses for the last few years. The global economy going down the shitter isn't Labour's fault, no matter how much one hates C&C, and whilst I'm not entirely convinced that there's no "Fuck you, incoming National government, have some scorched earth" on Cullen's part, he also knows from the last election that soaring leads in the polls can translate into a wafer-thin majority when the poll that matters is counted. Why risk thoroughly bogging-down the next governing party when there's still a chance that it could be you that has to steer the wagon out of it?
-
Craig, yes Cullen's over-reached. But at least he's admitted that he's over-reached. English is still spouting off as though nothing's changed.
-
As far as I'm aware, outside of some of the comments, there hasn't been a recent call for the reintroduction of the death penalty.
One of the topics that regularly comes up on the message boards of a site I frequent is reintroduction of capital punishment, and it does actually seem to be something that's got at least a passing level of support. I'm not sure how much of it is gut reaction and how much of it is considered, but there are a lot of people who weigh in on the discussions who don't think it in the least bit unreasonable to kill innocent people if it ensures that "scum" don't get a chance to reoffend. Some of them even support capital punishment for rape, not just murder, though that is a very small minority.
-
I've often heard that said, but what statute is it in? I can't find any mention of photographs taken in a public place in the Copyright or Privacy Acts.
That Clendon Feeny document is pretty good. As I said, it's a "technical" breach, meaning that to try and argue it you'd need a good lawyer and a lot of money, and it's really not worth it.
The law has also changed somewhat around how privacy is interpreted by the courts. Hosking was one of those cases that carved out a new niche, and now the justices have to try and work with it and decide what it all means. For most people, it's just too hard and expensive to try and bring these cases.
Also be aware that the tickets for events may have recording clauses. Just checked my tickets for the last two BDOs, and they both say "Ticket holders consent to filming and sound recording as members of the audience." Bingo, contractual term, that footage can be sold and (mis)used as the event promoters see fit. I imagine that most other festivals and similar events have clauses in the same vein.
-
you're at a public even enjoying yourself and TVNZ cover the event and 10 years later you're on a Telecom commercial laughing it up so you ring Telecom who put you on to Saatchi's who tell you they bought the 'stock images' from TVNZ so as far as they're concerned that's the end of the matter and hey it was 10 years ago and you're only seen for like 2 seconds anyway and it was filmed in a public place so .... what's your problem?
Technically, that's misuse of your likeness. If you're identifiable, there should be a signed model release. There's the obvious exception for current events, and if you're in a TV studio audience then you're releasing yourself for the purposes of that show simply by being there. But being filmed walking down the street and then having that footage used isn't within the grounds of legal behaviour.
-
An artist (for example) can't sell a work, then take a photograph of it, and publish that photograph, without the permission of the owner of the work.
That may be so, but it's more likely to be related to copyright in the frame than in the work itself. Easy to get screwed up with that. Not to mention that people could well get pissy if someone just randomly started taking photos of things.
Copyright doesn't pass with physical ownership, except by operation of specific contract. So the physical owner has no copyright in the artwork itself, except through assignment or by operation of the commissioning section of the Copyright Act.