Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Twitter appears huge in Indonesia, looking at the global mashup there. But a great many of those words are simply common words like 'child' and 'not', so perhaps their algorithim isn't working very well. Still interesting
All the same, it wouldn't surprise me. Indonesia was the fourth largest Facebook user earlier this year, on the back of only 35m internet users. The internet penetration there is growing very rapidly, on account of mobile devices. Ethan Zuckerman observes that the world is getting online, but traditional computing devices are making up a decreasing share.
-
Very briefly, Twitter has decided that it wants to bring the location function back within its control. It should allow for some interesting work, but again raises the age-old internet question of just how much information you want to put out there.
Joko Anwar is quite a wit. His kept promise to go naked if he got 3000 followers made the Jakarta papers today.
-
I'm not sure that this really addresses the question... but nevermind!
Firstly, I feel a lot greater sense of community through the blogs, and of course this site. I feel like I still have not only a stake but a voice in NZ's national conversation.
But the other side of things is a sense of frustration from over here; watching things like ACC, which is literally one of the best universal accident healthcare systems in the world, get underappreciated and threatened with destruction. It's hard for me not to feel like I only have negative things to say. I'm in almost every way the opposite of the Your Views ranters, but I understand their frustration and sense of loss.
-
I didn't know what "going commando" meant, until the recent post. So what has not having undies on got to do with your legs?
Taking them off would be an issue. Jeans don't go above the knee very easily.
-
What's been described previously sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, which is the whole point of restricting capacity in the first place. If people can barely move, that's a venue that's a panicked shout of "Fire" away from deaths by crushing/asphyxiation.
That's an issue of concern.
The difference between NZ and most of Australia is pretty significant in this respect. Here, the pubs and bars are often half entry and they're not letting more people in.
-
Kyle, I know that international jurisprudence tends to require that there be at least a small degree of artistic intent in a reproduction for it to generate new copyright.
I'm not a lawyer, so I may be wrong, but Section 14 of the Act (don't you love legislation.govt.nz?) would seem pretty clearly to apply only to original works, and to exclude copies.
It's dickish behaviour all the same.
So is writing silly rules to shut down pubs and bars after an arbitrary limit. There are already rules about licensing, noise, behaviour of patrons, public drunkenness, rowdiness. To the extent that they are problems, they should be dealt with directly, and the powers that already exist should be used. This is a banhammer approach, rather than one that allows a middle ground. Luckily, there is time for it to be stopped.
-
Oh shit@! I'm not going to start another copyright discussion. Sorry PAS'ers!
-
Simon, I would have thought that maintaining two days worth of anything other than Bintang would be difficult in Bali. You have my sympathy!
-
To clarify, Auckland City Council is maintaining strict rights over 1860s photographs. The one upthread is late 19th C.
-
photo of the King's Arms from the late 19th century
Awesome!
Although it always grates to see institutions imposing rights over images where the copyright has expired. They've decided that the images are protected by commercial license.
"This image is not to be reproduced in any form without permission of Auckland City Libraries"
New Zealand's copyright of the life of the author plus 50 years means that this item is almost certainly out of copyright (the author would have had to have been in their teens and lived at least another 65 years for this to still be copyrighted, even if dated to 1899.)
Grrrrr. 1860s photographs are not covered by copyright.