Posts by Andrew E
-
Cracker: RIght On., in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Agreed. Especially as large numbers of people appear (for reasons which I have yet to divine) to have no objection to doing the Time Warp again.
Perhaps Labour could focus on the line that says, "It's a jump to the left"
-
“Labour will fight tooth and nail against the agenda of Don Brash and John Key"
Well, so far their fighting has been pretty toothless. Hopefully the nails will prove somewhat more effective.
Sadly though, a tag line for a certain beverage springs to mind.
-
I thought of this post when reading this, from Merlin Mann, who clearly has suffered from the 'not being able to stop working' thing too.
Personally, when I was last working from home, it looked a lot like this:
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to nzlemming,
Nah, I think Young’s the narc they dumped in the first episode.
Jayne's way smarter than that.Yes, come to think of it, you're right.
This distraction into Firefly/Serenity matters is somewhat appropriate given the means by which I first encountered the programme.
Moving back on topic...
-
Hard News: The file-sharing bill, in reply to nzlemming,
Even if they did push that through, it wouldn’t stop file-sharing
Can't stop the signal.
#serenity
Jonathan Young = Jayne Cobb on the intelligence scale?
-
Muse: Hey Greg O'Connor, Krup You!, in reply to Jackie Clark,
One thing I worry about alot recently is how very easily we could go back to that ugliness, with all the seemingly draconian legislation currently being pushed through.
Yes, like misusing urgency tonight to shove through laws on file sharing.
-
Hard News: Dreaming of a world without evidence, in reply to Ross Bell,
Fascinating - thank you very much for the pointer to that.
Untangling those 'systematically asymmetrical relations of power' depends on more people like I/S making use of the OIA, and challenging refusals, IMHO.
-
Umm, yeah, Steve, I wasn't responding to any particular article. It was more of a general observation. If anything, it was following on from nzlemming's post, earlier.
-
I think we should be clear that having an evil-enrich-your-mates-who-donate-to-your-party-and-screw-the-poor agenda is not mutually exclusive of being incompetent-and-not-very-bright.
-
A separate question, and one which Mr Edgeler might be able to help with:
I had understood that an established constitutional principle was that governments/parliament could not legislate in a manner which binds future governments. If this is the case, how is a proposed 10 year regulatory 'holiday' consistent with that principle?
Also, if an opposition party disagrees with the current government's proposed approach on regulating UFB, presumably if it expresses that disagreement now, no company could have any claim for damages against a future government led by the party currently in opposition, should that government change the regulatory rules/shift the goal posts etc?