Posts by Logan O'Callahan
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Probably been said, but the threads too long to check...
Copyright infringement is not theft or stealing.
Theft or stealing means unlawfully taking something away from someone else.
If I steal a CD, I deprive the shop owner of something they own.
If I download a track (which I don't), the copyright owner can still sell tracks to other people, and maybe even to me.
Copyright infringement is more like sneaking into a concert or sports game (trespass).
-
I've been told german wasps can be a problem for a weakened bee hive - like a hive with a bad varroa infestation.
I've never seen bees and wasps fighting in the garden, but have seen lots of wasps, native wasps or bees, bumblebees and honey bees all working the same plants at the same time.
BTW, if any one who knows what tutu looks like knows where any bushes/trees are in Western bays and Mt Albert can you post a reply. We're supposed to keep an eye on it to avoid any chance of tutin poisoning.
-
Heard Lovelock on the radio last year talking to Kim Hill. I refer to that interview whenever someone says we are going to destroy the planet.
We aren't going to destroy the planet. We can lead to changes that destroy human civilisation, but the planet will continue to evolve and will chew us up and spit us out as it goes along.
He also talked then about potential for extreme events such as the gulf stream shutting down (ice age in Europe, end of the monsoons in Asia)
-
Bees: Some of the visibility of bees could be a rise in urban beekeeping.
We got concerned about pollination of fruit trees and garden crops and decided we should do something about it. Now we have a couple of beehives on our place in Pt Chev.
The bees apparently range up to 3km, but I think they won't usually need to go that far. It's definitely made a difference locally.
There are many others with hives in other Auckland suburbs. In Pt Chev there are at least three home apiaries that I know of, and a larger apiary at the beekeepers club at Unitec.
-
Really? I thought Banks was pretty good for that; Dead Air and The Business were quite good at talking about corporation without just saying they're evil.
Use of Weapons isn't as good as Player of Games, though
Loved The Crow Road, Dead Air was OK but didn't grip me the same way.
I also liked Player of Games, which appealed to my inner gaming geek, more than Use of Weapons, where the twist didn't really work for me. Both great books though.
Some initial hard work to get on top of bewildering names, places and scenarios, but once you're in, impossible to put down.Also common to his lit-fic.
-
This did cross my mind (though the markers I know are lovely people). But an indignant email I got today from someone who hadn't realised this was a satirical piece (something I did worry about when I wrote it) would indicate that markers get sick of reading the same essay over and over again and hunger for something original. So... swings and roundabouts?
Maybe the problem is conforming views of the teachers, students and markers. Everyone knows what you are supposed to see in and say about the standard texts. If you choose something different you and the marker are both less constrained - much easier to diverge - and many/most secondary students aren't engaged enough to carry a fresh and coherent argument in an exam situation.
15 years after the fact I finally saw the value and interest in studying and writing about literature and history. Sometimes I wish I could go back and do it again.
Do any schools link study courses in English/literature and history. I would have loved to study some good relevant fiction alongside learning the social/political history. Eg: study the depression and the new deal in history and Grapes of Wrath in English. Or elizabethan england (history) and Blackadder II (English).
That might have been enough to get me to read the texts. The metaphysical conceits of John Donne didn't do much for me at 16.
-
How about this - fantasy?
You've got a crusader persona, cultivated over more than a decade. It's looking thin after a few years in government.
You've got a few allegations against you. You have the evidence to knock them over.
Your time in government is almost up. You need to resurrect your crusader character.
You let a good storm brew up.
But you do tell bits of your defense, not enough to kill the storm, just enough to keep the most faithful core and establish a background for later. And you submerge the facts, focusing instead on positioning yourself.
You wait for a few of your adversaries to establish vulnerable positions.
And then, at the climax, You present the fundamentals of your case and play the contrite.
You then reveal your full hand. The storm evaporates. The crusader is reborn.
Your adversary?
-
Winston. I don't like the man. I truly wish they had dipped out at the last election.
But I just listened to his interview he gave this morning on national radio; and it changed my mind on how I think this is going to work out.
I thought it was a last ditch attempt to put his full version out before he had to step down, and so set the scene for his resurrection after he is cleared by the SFO and the Privileges committee.
His biggest problem today was his habitual paranoia. He sounded like someone so convinced of the truth of their case that they stumble their words and it comes out sounding even worse. Perhaps the tongue so unaccustomed...
My prediction:
-He will be cleared quickly by the SFO on the Vela/Bob Jones donations to NZ First.
-The evidence in relation to Owen Glenn donation will be inconclusive. The request for funds was by phone and Owen could be mistaken about who he talked to. Peters is adamant. Brian Henry is adamant. He *should* have a comprehensive note of the discussion which he could use to jog OGs memory.
-Winston attends the Karaka sales every year. He agrees they met there, but says this year not last, and says he never thanked him for a donation, because he didn't know about it. Perhaps Winston did say "thankyou for your donation" but in relation to the Auckland University business school, and OG misintepreted this? Maybe again Winston's team can throw doubt on OGs memory of the conversation. A good lawyer cross examining OG in front of the committee may make serious headway if they have some good starting material.
-The stakes are high. Winston has a story and he is sticking to it like glue. Where you can extract the factual threads from the cloak of bombasm, his story has been consistent. Deep down I think he is most likely telling the truth. It is still an ugly truth (his lawyer soliciting donations to clear bills that have not been rendered) and the OG payment may be found to amount to a personal donation to Winston. But he will be found to not have deliberately misled parliament - either through his statements or his declaration of interests.
-He will be seen as a victim by enough people for his support to return.
How that works out for the rest (John Key who rushed to judgement but hedged, Helen Clark who was not prepared to sack him without all the facts - although it must have been galling to have to put up with this, Rodney Hide who has attacked vigorously and probably has nothing to lose), who knows.
Although I hazard that the potential for this outcome is exactly why Clark hasn't rushed to judgment.
-
Canned my herald subscription yesterday. Been meaning to do that for a while.
What I need is a daily fix of good reporting, and I need it public transport friendly.
Suggestion: electronic distribution, cellwise in the wee hours when the networks must be quiet, to be read on a mobile e-book type device.
I could read the news on the way to work and a good piece of sci-fi on the way home.
-
Every time this child poverty figure is promoted I grimace.
"New Zealand came third-worst in the developed world in a Unicef survey of child poverty around the year 2000, with a quarter of all children then living in families earning less than 60 per cent of the median income."
I don't doubt that poverty exists in NZ. But this measure is plain ridiculous.
Median = the income of the 50th percentile.
So a country with a really skewed income distribution (ie: 80% of people earn the minimum wage, 10% earn nothing, 10% earn heaps), would perform better than a country with an even income spread. Which one is actually better?
Working for families could actually make this statistic worse because it the income of so many families is raised that WFF could raise the median income. This raises the bar, and suddenly all beneficiaries are under the bar.
Most people think of poverty as not having an income sufficient to survive. The Unicef statistic doesn't measure that. Everyone in the country could be driving BMWs, watching big screen TVs, eating scotch fillet and Brussel sprouts every night, and according to this measure you could still have the same number in poverty.
The statistic doesn't even measure income distribution in any meaningful way. A sizable proportion of children are always going to be in the lowest income brackets: single income familes, young parents. This doesn't mean they're living in poverty.