Posts by Carol Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Occupy: Don't call it a protest, in reply to Islander,
I'm with you, Islander. AAAARRRRGGGH is right. I'm a bit sad about the unseemly haste to abandon physical books in favour of digital collections, ebooks etc. I belong to a book group that specialises in science books and they are moving to Kindles next year - mostly because of costs. I can't say it's a development I am warming to.
-
Hard News: Occupy: Don't call it a protest, in reply to Hilary Stace,
I so agree. It would be nice to think that libraries could take the long view. I was sad to hear from a friend who is a librarian in Western Australia that libraries over there no longer hold children's books by Joan Aiken - one of my favourite authors (still) and one whom I think has enduring value regardless of current fads.
-
Hard News: Occupy: Don't call it a protest, in reply to Islander,
Me too, Islander. My daily Doonesbury dose is probably the main reason I subscribe to the DomPost..
-
Hard News: Occupy: Don't call it a protest, in reply to Hilary Stace,
They are making a virtue of not being a spokesperson for anyone or
I'm enjoying Doonesbury's take on it all.
-
A roundup of the media coverage at the hearings, from the Science Media Centre.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Sacha,
Didn't GNS say that?
Well, no, not in the way the Herald are implying.
Have a look at the recordings of the hearings, Sacha. I'm sorry I'm a bit pressed for time right now to dig out the relevant session. I think it was on the afternoon of the 18th. -
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Sacha,
A very measured response, Sacha.
The Herald editorial seems pretty unfair to me. They are making the serious allegation that GNS knowingly withheld information because of 'social science advice'. This is not supported by the video records of the hearings - GNS make it clear that they had a policy of openness with their information. When they talked about the need to avoid panic, what they were specifically referring to was the fear, immediately after the Sept 4 event, that a larger magnitude event than the original event could be triggered. They considered this so improbable that they did not feel it helpful to raise it as a possibility. (note that the feb 22 event was smaller but owing to a very unlucky combination of circumstances had a greater intensity on the surface).
In hindsight, they probably wish they had done things a bit differently, but the evidence suggests that they did the best they could with the information they had available at the time, in good faith.It's important that the hard questions continue to be asked, but a L'Aquila style beat up is not something to be encouraged.
-
The Ohiwa harbour and sandspit is also a very important area for migratory birds. Has your bro-in-law heard how things are there?
-
Up Front: Casual, Shallow and Meaningless, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Or in response to the ghastly Have a nice day!:
I have other plans.
-