Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Before the fall, in reply to Steve Curtis,
Roughly the same as 5 heads in a row. ???
In other words, you notice it when it happens, but it's not actually the biggest deal.
-
Legal Beagle: Before the fall, in reply to Steve Curtis,
While worthy all the changes you mention dont ‘enhance the overall experience’ as marketeers might say.
No. I argued for a much lower threshold as the only change likely to make very much of a (EDIT: in my opinion positive) difference at all (I don’t see anything higher than 3% leading to much appreciable change, but would welcome even lower).
Some of the more technical changes I recommend have the prospect to improve things in very rare circumstances, but all up I am not expecting something revolutionary.
-
Legal Beagle: Before the fall, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
What's the practical implication of not having an overhang? If we had none at the last election, would a list seat have been taken from the largest party or the last elected list MP?
The last elected MP. If the overhang was going to be one, then the Sainte-Laguë apportionment would only use the top 119 quotients, if two, then top 118 etc. This is already the system used if an independent, or a candidate from a party which did not run a list, wins a seat.
In 2011, National would have been down one seat.
2008 - National and the Greens each down one.
2005 - National down one.Except in 1996, National has had the 120th quotient at every election.
-
Field Theory: Time will tell, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
what with the bit where the clock stops and you come back on guard in the centre of the piste after a hit is scored and then restart the clock
It was an extra minute, so they weren't going back to the middle.
Havie just caught up with this. It's been sitting on my FreeVo for a while. I'm not disappointed with how it turned out. What happened in the end was that someone got more points than the other person by earning them, rather than someone winning because a coin toss went there way. That seems appropriate. Plus, you know, the apparent foul, whatever that was :-)
-
You're moving to HD?
-
Field Theory: Time will tell, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
NBC more American corporate bullying…
I thought this piece on the non-importance of Twitter was thoroughly excellent. It's about the Olympics, but could easily be about politics or any number of things:
http://sportsonearthblog.com/2012/07/31/nbc-is-ignoring-twitter-diehards-and-rightfully-so/
And while I was looking for that to link to, I came across another piece of the site, which was also very good:
http://sportsonearthblog.com/2012/08/01/the-19-greatest-summer-olympians-of-all-time/
-
Field Theory: And they're off!, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Did they review the efforts of the other teams in the running for medals? How could it be fair if they didn’t?
They reviewed the performances at the request of every coach who requested a review. So no. How could it be fair? Everyone else knew what was going on, and could have made similar requests. Presumably, the judges don't make many mistakes of the type made here (it was pretty big).
I anticipate that requests must be made at the end of the rotation (the judges would be busy judging everyone else until then). It’s just unfortunate that the error happened on the last rotation.
I must say I was pleasantly surprised at the attitude of the commentators: didn’t call it sour grapes (which I was expecting, but basically said, this is what coaches are there for, it is unfortunate, but more unfortunate would be screwing over some competitor and team whose score was miscalculated.
-
And finally, don’t worry about Prime cutting off the Olympics to show stupid, vitally important, rugby or league. That’ll be on Maori TV now.
Is the working assumption that my working assumption the other day was correct?
-
Legal Beagle: Presuming innocence, in reply to Peter Green,
I suspect our reactions might be coloured by whether or not the police got it right.
That's my suspicion too. Then I asked myself whether my different reactions to the two cases was actually justified, given the role of the police, the fact they make mistakes, and the fact neither man will really get to defend himself. Then I wrote my blog post :-)
-
Field Theory: And they're off!, in reply to Lilith __,
Why? As long as it’s fair?
The bit where I begin with “Not saying” was important as a means to divine my views on this matter.
why shouldn’t sport have a judgeable aesthetic component, if it’s relevant
My point was that I didn’t have a problem with that, but the type of sport where judging is so subjective that multiple judges are needed in order to balance things out is different from sports where one judge (of any particular aspect) is considered sufficient, or where what they are judging can be objectively stated (like an LBW, or the offside rule).