Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
my understanding is that the big practical problem with larger pulse units is the enormous amount of heat they generate, which in turn produces significant problems when it come to connecting it to the vehicle.
you can run them as an outboard pod, as with the V1, but that's no good for supersonic flight, were for aerodynamic purposes the engine has to be either inside the fuselage or nestled under the wings.I saw the solution to this the other day while my son and I were watching Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Those pod-racers, they had it sorted, through some sort of bright coloured electrical charge which held the pod to the machine.
So, in summary, George Lucas is your man David. Though if you gonna want to put them on AirNZ flights, that putt putt sound they made before cutting out - might need to fix that one.
-
You don't want to eat dairy cows, high butter/ fat. You do want to eat beef, which are usually steers.
Yeah, I use cows to mean males and females of the species, which is technically incorrect I suspect. But I also call members of the ape family monkeys, which I think is more than technically incorrect. Meh.
-
(And before anyone gets on their high horse about how valuable farming is, this isn't the nineteenth century anymore. Agriculture contributes only 5% of total GDP and 3.3% of total employment (and that includes first-stage processing). Those claims of special status may have been true in the past, but not anymore).
While not disagreeing that something should be done about the contribution of farm animals, economics is not the only way to look at the importance of farming. The various forms of farming provide the vast majority of meat in our diets, and it would be a massive economic and cultural change if the price of meat suddenly greatly increased. There would also be a big impact upon dairy products, including milk. While there are other sources, those are our primary sources of calcium and iron which are both important for good health.
Given that the economic health of the country has often being built on the back of the agricultural industry, I suspect farmers might get a bit huffy if all of a sudden they're all at fault for global warming. There wouldn't be as many cows if we all ate a lot less cow after all.
-
It seems to me that the 'code of conduct' is nothing more than a set of rules which people are agreeing to follow.
All most people do is turn that around and say "these are the rules which you're expected to follow when you're on my/this site", because the chances of getting people to agree to following a code voluntarily is slim, whereas if the moderator follows it then they push everyone else into following it through their moderation. Russell's obviously doing something similar, except the rules aren't explicitly posted as far as I can tell.
For 'the blogosphere' to get up in arms because someone has decided to write them down and ask people to sign up to them is a little silly really. If the sites are already moderated then it's not exactly a big step to give people the rules and say "hey, follow this or we'll step in".
-
Good of you to take one for science.
-
As I understood it, the sailors were following rules of engagement (or in this case, non-engagement) and surely should only have been court-martialed if they'd ignored those and opened fire.
Anyway, as Russell said, it seems to have worked out reasonably well. I don't think Western powers getting in a shooting match with another Middle Eastern powers is really what the world needs this week/month/year.
-
Kyle: The law can just be written in different ways. And the important thing, in my view, is just not to deceive to yourself about what it all adds up to.
Clearly this isn't going anywhere but restating points, so I'll wave it off and enjoy my Easter.
-
As for Howard Broad and his *sincere* apology on behalf of all women, well, I don't believe it for a second. Let's recall what Lynley Hood published on Scoop on April 5 2006.
I was interested to hear what Lynley Hood's book said about Howard Broad. My memory of his place in the case was that he was the supervisor of the supervisor of the detective who history has shown to be... well sleeping with complainants and going on a personal crusade. The press conference was bumped up the chain of command which is perfectly normal - no detective was going to be allowed to front up for a major media conference like that. I'm not sure if he had any involvement with the decision to arrest the women, or Ellis, and if he did, it would probably have been more that he was informed of the decision and briefed on it, rather than having input into it.
I agree that history has shown the whole Christchurch Creche case to be a shocker. But senior police officers have to trust the cops that are doing the work until they're clearly proven to be incompetent/wrong. I think the fact that they got one conviction (dubious though I think it might be) would mean you'd be very unlikely to get an apology for the arrests that never led to a conviction. The courts have said that abuse took place at the creche, and simply on that looking at arresting the women wouldn't be unreasonable, as how could it have happened without some of them knowing?
[Note I'm not saying that abuse did happen, just trying to look at it from the police's point of view. Courts of law have consistently said that abuse took place there, which is the major way that the police measure success - convictions.]
-
Kyle: It's pointless playng the "it's only a defence" game. If you crimialize possession of a drug but throw in a clause later about "reasonable amounts for personal use" not resulting in anyone going to prison, rather than sticking it in the original clause, then you've decriminalized possession of reasonable amounts etc.. It's just a different way of getting the same thing. The left would see this on any other issue (and does in fact do so), I swear....
The comparison is invalid - what you've put forward isn't a defence to get you out of a prosecution, this is a (hypothetical) positive piece of legislation saying "You are allowed X amounts of drugs." There's no law on our books saying "you are allowed Y amount of smacking".
The law says assault is against the law, and people are "justified in using force by way of correction towards the child". It doesn't say that "parents using reasonable force are not committing assault", it says they are committing assault and that assault is justified by way of correction towards the child.
In much the same way that the ship/plane's captain might assault a passenger who is out of control and posing a danger to his vessel and its passengers. It might be justified assault, but it's still assault.
So yes, smacking is illegal at present. I'll restate, if it wasn't illegal, you couldn't be convicted of it in a court of law, because you shouldn't get convicted of things that aren't illegal.
And good to see you speaking out for 'the left'. They have so much trouble doing it themselves, nice of them to appoint you as their spokesperson to represent them. My ballot paper must have gone missing in the post.
Your speeding case has too many variants to consider. Sorry.
Ah my bad. Nice to know my argument is invalid through... being too complex?
-
in Britain 75% of children are smacked before they are 1 year old
It's truly sad that 75% of parents anywhere think that kids, before they turn one, can associate being hit with any sort of positive parenting message or behavioural adjustment. At least there's an 'excuse' when they're older that you can explain your reasoning and they might understand.
Kids under one must be so confused about why their parents are hitting them (and I'd suggest the parents are pretty confused as well).