Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Just a quick on topic comment.
For me the issue around TV of the future is not about extinction it is about adaption.
50 years ago when it got dark you read a book or watched TV or played scrabble/sex. That was it.
What has happened over the last 25 years and with internet in particular is that the list of things you can do after the sun has gone down has dramatically expanded. And guess what different people, do different things.
What was once a monopoly on people's time after sunset is now well and truly broken. Millions people play WoW after dark, or X-box, or playstation and if they watch TV it is only to see specific things. Millions of people surf facebook after sunset and if they watch TV it is only for specific things.
People don't simply sit on the couch watching TV because it is only thing to do. Now they have choices and they actually exercise those choices.
What is happening now is that producers of TV programs and advertisers are adapting to that change. Some of that adaption is to lowest common denominator programming. But some is to high quality specific target programs.
How people will pay for that will change as well. We aren't very far from simply paying on the spot if you want to watch Dr Who and probably two prices with/without ads.
But the age of the TV monopoly where advertisers and programmers could guarantee a set market is gone.
-
Arguing is about winning.
I grew up with argumentative Dutch parents. For them arguing was about winning, and they were good at it. My father took particular pleasure in arguing full circle until his "opponent" was arguing against their original position.
To me that defines trolling.
If your intent is simply to "win" an argument you are a troll. Learn to live with that and what comes with it.
For most adults arguing is about comparing ideas worldviews and sometimes, hopefully, knowledge . The purpose is to end the discussion with more knowledge than you started not to "win".
By all means bring your differences of opinion and better yet differences of experience and knowledge. But for me I'd prefer if you left behind competitive argument.
-
when they're doing that strange human mutual grooming thing
It has been a while since Emma posted hasn't it.
Our cat love laps, but really doesn't like naked laps (shorts). I think she is a bit freaked out by the idea we can take our fur off.
-
Yay for more cat blogs - except you need pictures.
Will make a beeline for the lap of whoever in the house is most unlikely to want him
Isn't this a truism when it comes to cats? :)
Cats, like most animals, see eye contact as threatening. Humans are the reverse. So cat lovers will look directly at the cat, who decides s/he won't have a bar of it. Cat haters will avoid eye contact, signaling to the cat that they are not hostile and hence have a perfectly good lap.
Maine coons are bred in NZ
Our cat is also 95% indoors, but that's because she is a woos. She also has cancer and has monthly blood tests and daily pills. But after 18 years she is a family member and gets as much love and care as any other family member regardless of the cost.
-
Thank you David for again allowing us into your life.
My deepest sympathies and yes I too, will abuse your personal space and line up to give you a hug. You better get used to it.
-
Ban alco-pop.
Actually I'd probably just tax the hell out of sugar that way you'd hit both alcho-pop and carbonated sugar water drinks as well as a whole slew of really shitty "foods" with incredibly high levels of sugar.
Most kids don't really like alcohol drinks unless they are sweet and you nail some of the worst offenders with respect to obesity and diabetes.
Make the tax only kick in when you went over a threshold of sugar x% by weight and make sure you define sugar to include all the fruit and grain sugars.
Treat it the same way you treat tobacco and alcohol taxes - essentially as a tax on products that result in extra stress on the health system.
-
I went for a walk and I felt better
Well yes ... but it was 4 years after the walk. After my father died I walked over a significant chunk of central Auckland ... it wasn't the solution but I got a bit fitter.
-
And to change the topic completely I loved this science/paparazzi headline.
Heavyweight runaway star captured and no it isn't Kirsty Alley again.
-
I'd also point out that it's been tried before
Doing the same thing and expecting different results ... isn't that definition of something or other...
-
I'll echo that sentiment.
There is this ridiculous portrayal of tax as something evil that must be minimised. Whereas the truth is tax is what we as a society agree to pay to the government to allow the government to do things we can't effectively do ourselves. eg pay for a police force, pay for a public health system, pay for a free education system.
Taxation is good because it allows the government to buy things we simply could not buy as individuals.
If as a society decide we want and need better health care then increasing taxation to achieve that is the right and proper thing to do.
It is complete nonsense to argue we should try and reduce tax when the evidence of the last century is that those nations that embraced the value of tax and the benefits of government spending are the nations with the best standard of living.
As for that 39% bracket - of course those that earn the most should and will pay more tax. Keith's last analysis showed quite clearly that the tax system as it was meant the richest people who earned 40% of the income paid 40% of the tax. I doubt that is true any more.