Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
Except in Public Health research, where Otago in Wellington competes with Massey in Wellington.
Well research isn't fixed in place and so is a nationwide competition. Otago competes largely with Auckland for medical research funding.
-
Which raises the whole issue of the value to New Zealand of allowing Universities (and technical institutes) to compete for students.
None of Otago's campuses really compete with other institutions.
Wellington and Christchurch are medical school outposts, Otago provides med students to south of Auckland for training, Auckland students go to Auckland hospitals for their 4th and 5th years.
Invercargill is only a teachers college outpost, since Otago took over the Dunedin College of Education. That doesn't compete with SIT.
Auckland has some minor competition - they run a MBA type course there - with Auckland. But largely it's a marketing and admin centre.
-
The fact that the most recent person offended by it, is in Adelaide, highlights the bizarre nature of this part of the thread.
-
Maybe he's an advocate of really, really large postcards?
-
"I think TVNZ may have used the size of the rugby field - I said Eden Park," Mr Brownlee told Radio New Zealand.
He doesn't think well on his feet does he?
Eden Park is bigger than a rugby field (since it contains one), so the equivalent mining area will be bigger.
-
Is "==" some "C" thing that I've missed again?
I'm not sure where I got it from now. But it should be taken to mean 'equivalent'.
-
Damn you Hood!
-
Except that's the same essentially bullshitty rhetorical slight of hand that allows you to pretend that government is some mysterious "they" you're in no way responsible for.
On that basis, Beehive == Auckland at least as much (and indeed twice as much based on number of MPs) as Beehive == Wellington. And that would make the headline of Russell's post slightly accurate (given where Key and Hide represent) nonsense.
Personally, I assumed the headline was about buying lumps of delicious pastry-wrapped beef.
I thought Russell was going to link to an MP3 of him covering Billy Connelly's "if it weren't fer yer Wellies...." Now I feel deprived.
-
I tend to think this is a political gesture that doesn't change the (already harsh) reality very much. Bennett's claim that the measures will "break the cycle of welfare dependency" was difficult to credit.
I too was underwhelmed by the changes, though I guess that's a good thing. I didn't see it as the fascist crackdown that some people have been calling it.
I also don't see the benefit in having National MPs deliberately speak out against government policy on the PM's OK.
It's not an unusual political compromise. The government has the numbers to pass it, so some managed dissension isn't the end of the world. It allows you to structure your dissent so you don't get people crossing the floor and bringing down governments a la Marilyn Wearing. Keeps her happy without hurting the government, and will probably help the electorate vote in Auckland central, which they sure as hell want to win next election.
Then there is also this pearler that was indeed extremely funny to watch.
I found the whole episode embarassing. If that's the best thing Labour has to do with their time, and the time of the other MPs in parliament, they're really on the wrong track. A plague on both their houses.
It won't be New Zealand, 99.99999% of the money will go overseas.
I think you need to go back to what Keith posted about this:
To be fair, from what I can tell, 80% of mining firms are majority NZ-owned. That's not to say that new entrants into the market will also be NZ-owned, but the characterisation of mining companies as evil multinationals is unfounded. If they are evil, they're locally-owned evil.
-
I actually kind of feel like Paul has a point, at least in a capital-A Arts sense, though some of the resulting exculsions seem unhelpful.
Given that he's clearly having a discussion about a different definition of 'art' (as you say, capital A) than (I think) everyone else was discussing (actual art objects) I've moved on.
Given the original discussion was about "who should be on the list of people who we approach to make public art", I dislike where he's ended up with his exclusionary definition. If the European tradition of art doesn't like what gets put up, it can go shove it. :)