Hard News: A voice of reason and authority
385 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 16 Newer→ Last
-
"Mr Theobald has received a letter from human resources head Patrick Crawford.
In it, Mr Crawford said: "Information has come to my attention which indicates that you may have intentionally driven a car through Inland Revenue's Christchurch building ... I am concerned that your conduct may be inconsistent with the Code of Conduct."Love it.
Indeed.
Mr Theobald is otherwise known as Mick from The Axemen. Here is his blog post on the events in question.
-
It wouldn't be hard to ban hands-free kits in cars, much like banning radar detectors. You just fine people who have them, and confiscate them. It would be just as easy to ban car stereos too, they are well known for causing accidents. You could also ban eating and drinking in the car. But such bans could be counterproductive, if hands free were just as illegal, then many people wouldn't bother with them, on the grounds of cost and having to learn how to use them. If car stereos were illegal, people might take to using their portable mp3 players, which would most likely be even more dangerous. If people couldn't eat or drink, it's possible they might actually be more impaired on some kind of statistical average, but simple virtue of dehydration or hunger.
I will definitely find the cellphone ban highly inconvenient, and will most likely get a hands free kit. Until then I'll most likely do what everyone in Australia does (where talking on the cell has been illegal for the longest time), which is keep an eye out for cops, and put the phone in your lap as you pass them. But I doubt I'd ever get stopped anyway - pulling people over seldom seems to happen any more, unless you're really asking for it. The cops are either too busy or too lazy.
-
Sofie, you may need to remind your therapist of his homeland's sterling treatment of its own minorities.
Nah, his comparisons are his way of trying to understand the country he, his wife and kids have chosen to call home and the reasons he left China are obvious to him (pollution being one) . I am glad they so far love this country and preferred the last government to the present one.:)
-
Incestuous bunch, those self-consciously 'elite-school' teachers.
Just to clarify, Kelston Boys may have a good rugby team, but it's not regarded as an "elite school". (sorry if this offends any Kelston Old Boys)
When compound adjectives attack! Just to clarify the clarification: I wasn't referring so much to the schools themselves as the teachers, and pointing out the fact that they all had Grammar connections. Is all.
-
When compound adjectives attack! Just to clarify the clarification: I wasn't referring so much to the schools themselves as the teachers, and pointing out the fact that they all had Grammar connections. Is all.
And I was more concerned by how much they'd both be improved by ball gags and a taser in the ballocks until they chose to stop talking. Can't see how you can lay all the dumbosity on AGS.
-
But I doubt I'd ever get stopped anyway - pulling people over seldom seems to happen any more, unless you're really asking for it. The cops are either too busy or too lazy.
Whereabouts are you? I've seen 4 pulled over (probably for speeding) in the last 2 days. Two on Wgtn motorway, 1 on Old Hutt Rd & one on SH1 near Tawa.
-
I see a lot of people pulled over, but I believe the offence they have usually committed is Driving While Brown.
-
Kyle: I had no problems with O'Hare putting forward an argument regarding his area of expertise. Just could have done without the ""Why do we do research?" plaint -- especially when the Prime Minister's own science advisor seems to have a more realistic understanding of the limits of his influence.
I'm not sure what the point of doing research into the risks of using cell phones when driving if it's not to affect public policy. Perhaps it might be useful for cell phone companies or car companies, though I suspect neither would be interested in research which says "umm, don't talk and drive at the same time".
-
I'm not sure what the point of doing research into the risks of using cell phones when driving if it's not to affect public policy.
But, OTOH, how many common rooms would turn into a sea of erect hackles at the very idea that their research should be guided by such utilitarian airms? (Yes, I take your point but that was an irresistible tease.)
-
Can't see how you can lay all the dumbosity on AGS.
LOL. I can, but there may be subjective, personal-history reasons for that ...
-
I'd always had the idea Objectivist philosophy was bunk but I didn't realise they needed to invent their own logic to not prove their point with.
As an objectivist (small ' o ') I always assumed (even though I hadn't read much of Rand's philosophy) that I had a similar metaphysical and epistemological stance as Objectivists, and we just differed on some moral and political conclusions (especially environmental and economic matters). So yeah, I was surprised to find Perigo making the argument he did in reply to Nola's first response. I didn't realise they had an idiosyncratic approach to logic.
To be fair, however, it does seem to be something that's contested within Objectivist circles. As Kelley said, "standard" logic was "compatible with Objectivist views about knowledge."
-
Just listening to The Panel talking about banning liquor sales in diaries -- isn't it funny how 'South Auckland' always gets mentioned as a booze-sodden war zone, not Newmarket, or Ponsonby or Thorndon. Any correlation with where your average nice middle class National Radio listener (or your average media staffer) lives and does their booze shopping?
-
In this part of the world I'd just be happy if they could stop people from txting on a motorbike whilst riding with three children and a dog in the fast lane.
Ha! excellent :)
-
But I doubt I'd ever get stopped anyway - pulling people over seldom seems to happen any more, unless you're really asking for it. The cops are either too busy or too lazy.
[splutter] Not where I've been driving, mate. I know I do a lot of long distance stuff but I see it a lot. And have experienced it twice over the past year.
Although at least the last cop, in north Canterbury, was decent enough - as he wrote out the ticket - to tell me roughly where the next cop would be.
-
I'm pretty sure I didn't say it was his research, and I don't think he claimed it was his either. And I'm sure the journalist played no role in leading you to your interpretation that he wants to determine the law, bound as they are to report in a non-sensationalist fashion.
My reading of the ODT story you linked to included an O'Hare's we, in "why do we do research?", implying partial responsibility at least for the research under discussion. And the whole story is based on his frustration that the government was not also to ban use of hands-free cell-phones when research showed ..., so I'd say putting it that he wished to determine the policy/law is a reasonable short-hand version.
What really stimulated my response wasMr Joyce said allowing hands-free phones recognised many business and trades people depended on cellphones for their livelihood.
Prof O'Hare dismissed this as a "specious argument". "Either you are going to pay attention to what the science shows you or you are not."In the context of my affirming the role-clarity of Chief Science Advisor Gluckman, I saw this as a good illustration of the opposite. That considerations beyond safety should have no relevance to a policy decision? To point this out is not to bag scientists and their research and their input to policy, it concerns the manner of their input, in particular this binary all or nothing approach.
Could even be that we're getting an achievable first step on the way to a wider ban in some years, and in the meantime, surely formal ban on texting (send/receiving) and overall reduction in cell-phone use - surely progress? And a useful part of an educative process that good research will inform.
-
Rob, I was talking shit. The reason I, and practically everyone I associate with, never get stopped any more is we're all older, and mostly more law abiding than we were. That will probably extend to cellphones.
-
Stewart wrote:
I don't doubt that, in cars, hands-free is safer than not, but ...
But that's just it. Research shows that (contrary to common sense), hands-free is not any safer than hand held phones.
People try to argue with this, stating that surely hands-free talking is just like talking to someone else in the car. But research shows that people in the car react to things that occur, so they stop talking when the driver starts passing, or somebody pulls out in front, or other situations that require the driver's full attention. The person on the other end of the hands-free kit does not.
Officially banning texting is a great move. A number of times I have seen what I thought were totally drunk drivers not keeping in their lane properly, and it turns out that they are holding a cellphone on their steering wheel, and reading it (or thumbing it), while driving. Madness !
-
And for those who can't get enough of Obamacare-related crazy, the Wall Street Journal is now printing very bad science fiction on the op-ed page. Jesus, there are days I miss being un-medicated...
-
I see a lot of people pulled over, but I believe the offence they have usually committed is Driving While Brown.
Poor old Russell eh?
Anypoo, Cellphone shmellphone. Any half decent phone these days has a built in mp3 player and some even have a wireless (radio for you young chumps). You can plug them straight into your car radio and get them to answer all by themselves, thus allowing the captain of a horseless carriage to converse in full glorious stereo and listen to tunes when not in use as a telephone. Far more dangerous by far are those other frightfully distracting things called babies. I suggest arresting anybody displaying those signs warning of child infestation. -
@Chris W -- I think O'Hare is using "why do we do research?" in a much more generic sense. He's all about aviation decision-making.
You might not see it this way, but I see the binary nothing or all approach as a journalistic construct. In my experience, journalists glaze over the if you try to construct a more nuanced argument (and often won't publish it). Once, I was quoted along with another person in the field, and the surrounding text made it sound like we had a trenchant disagreement. Then I re-read the quotes from each of us and realised that we agreed. I think Gluckman is (at least at this stage) lucky that people are listening to him when he's being reasonable (long may that continue and spread). So in that sense I don't disagree with you, I'm just not sure that we agree on the cause. Again, in my experience, if you're joking round with the reporter before or after the 'interview' and say something a bit more clear cut, that'll be the headline. (see recent Media 7 on 'nothing is off the record').
we're getting an achievable first step on the way to a wider ban in some years, and in the meantime, surely formal ban on texting (send/receiving) and overall reduction in cell-phone use - surely progress?
Texting sure. I still worry that hand-held might be counter-productive in terms of increasing hands-free use. If this sends the message that hands-free is safer, and people pick up on it, it has the real potential to increase the amount of time people are talking and driving. Politicians like bans. It shows decisiveness and action. However, they often times have unintended consequences, sometimes serious.
-
And for those who can't get enough of Obamacare-related crazy, the Wall Street Journal is now printing very bad science fiction on the op-ed page. Jesus, there are days I miss being un-medicated..
I'm really not sure what to say about that, um, column ...
-
I'm really not sure what to say about that, um, column ...
That it makes Ayn Rand at her most wooden and didactic look like Chekhov?
-
Godwin's Law leaps from the internet into a townhall debate.
-
Godwin's Law leaps from the internet into a townhall debate.
And she dropped her Nazi reference so casually. I liked how Franks called her for what she was.
Yesterday's most totally batshit award, however, may have gone to the woman who shouted "Heil Hitler!" at a Jewish man praising Israel's health system:
By chance, she herself was interviewed shortly beforehand. She says her husband is uninsured, despite working three jobs. Anyone who can divine the logic (apart from it being, apparently, "Biblical" to oppose healthcare reform) in her stance is doing better than me:
-
And for those who can't get enough of Obamacare-related crazy, the Wall Street Journal is now printing very bad science fiction on the op-ed page. Jesus, there are days I miss being un-medicated..
Meanwhile, the Onion's latest report, Congress Deadlocked Over How To Not Provide Health Care seems to be too close to the truth for comfort...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.