Posts by Sacha
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The idea of framing (Lakoff = brillig) is way useful, but the cited study here is rubbish.
The results were startling. When the virus metaphor was used, significantly more people offered systemic solutions – these responses were higher by 17%. Thanks to the power of one word!
Wrong. Thanks to the power of the phrase “immune system ” over many decades. Amateur hour.
Lefties have to do this stuff properly – insisting on smart thinking and competent governance rather than expensive polling and mystical foreign advisors. If people are simply not good enough for that then they need to get out of the way. Now.
The results for all current and future New Zealanders are more important than any individual's ego.
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to Alfie,
a new multi-media drive-time news show
the antidote to paul henry on morning telly
-
Legal Beagle: Cameron Slater: computer hacker?, in reply to Russell Brown,
Those university fees are real steep.
-
Legal Beagle: Cameron Slater: computer hacker?, in reply to Stephen Judd,
On untested law, they shouldn't be usurping the courts.
-
Legal Beagle: Cameron Slater: computer hacker?, in reply to Sacha,
links presented on the surface
This of course was the nature of Labour's error, but it would have been good to see a court test the limits, not some faceless police prosecution team.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Paul Campbell,
can't control something unless you colonise it.
hard to avoid some splashback though. -
Most people who visit a website do not feel entitled to delve into its file structure beyond links presented on the surface. Sure not authorised to take whatever they find.
Police (non)prosecutors are making decisions that are courts' to make, not theirs.
-
Legal Beagle: Cameron Slater: computer hacker?, in reply to Alfie,
I would like to have seen this matter tested in court.
snap
-
Legal Beagle: Cameron Slater: computer hacker?, in reply to Thomas Lumley,
where access was fairly obviously not intended.
That seems like a crucial test. How the Police were satisfied it did not even apply to credit card transactions etc mystifies me. I'd rather their assumptions were tested in court.
-
A useful Standard post discusses why it probably *is* a prosecutable offence.
If it is true that there is no precedent around this issue, why would Police err on the side of not referring the matter to a court given there is doubt including public statements by at least a few lawyers?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 195 196 197 198 199 … 1971 Older→ First