Salvation Army? Auckland Mission? Probably any of the social housing providers, I'd guess?
Yeah, what Matt said...
Am I wrong in believing that the new amendments wouldn't have saved Christie?
My understanding is that the tighter bail conditions are for a SECOND offence, while Christie was killed while Akshay was on bail for kidnapping her (his first offence).
For those mentioning Little Brother, the main point (that I got) of the book is that if the watchers are looking at you (ie. they're Big Brother) then the response is to look at them (ie. become Little Brother) . Encryption does not stop "them" spying on you, or abusing freedoms (ie. the $5 wrench solution). But letting the world know what they're doing puts the spot light back on them.
BTW. There's a sequel to Little Brother, Homeland . An unfortunate outcome of using that name means that Fox has issued DCMA takedown requests... morons!
Gio: you do realise that there's absolutely no motivation for a company in a low-wage country to increase its wages when a tariff removes one of its advantages?
If I'm making shoes and paying my employee $2/shoe, and selling them to the States for $20/shoe, then I can afford to cut some of the profit I'm making & pay my employee $3/shoe. But if my $20 shoe now costs $50 from tariffs and the locals prefer to buy a locally made brand, then I'm gonna have to keep making shoes at $2/shoe, or even lay off staff. The only people benefiting are the ones taking the tariffs.
Oh, and why would I ship to the US? The US can be stuck with their expensive manufacturers, I'll just sell my shoes locally and save the shipping costs.
[Edited for the apostrophe nazi Matt]
@kyle: I'm sure my personal evidence will be less valuable than yours, but I used to work near the Ellerslie Police Station, and I can confirm that motorcycles are still used (at least up until a few months ago). The sound of a sick siren (anyone who's heard them will know what I mean) was associated with the rapid blur of a motorcycle usually shooting down Main Highway.
@keir: hate to repeat what's already been said, but I think your definition of consumption & production is not only different to what most commentators would use, but also different to what the common man would use. *shakes head*
Sort of. You can model it as consumable for our intents here, I think.
I'm still confused. How do you throw away shelter? After I've used it, it's still usable by someone else (well, unless I've burnt it down, but that's another issue).
Oh, and a fruit tree produces fruit, that can be sold after it's picked. A bee hive produces honey, that can be sold after it's harvested. Both of those produce a good. Houses don't produce a good or item.
Shelter not being a consumable good, obviously.
Please clarify for me: are you saying that you consume shelter?
By consume I mean use, modify, destroy, etc. You know, like how you use a TV & throw it away after 4 or 5 years (when it's worthless), or how you eat a meal, or how you throw away that toilet paper after it's been used.
I always assumed that consumable goods were things that you use then throw away once you've used them for their purpose. Even cars aren't consumable goods... unless you're Warren Buffet.
Every contract I have signed specifically *excludes* braille editions or talking -books -for-the-blindfrom my royalties
Wow, that's an interesting clause! I agree that it's a good clause, but it sure looks like the publishers are taking advantage of it somehow (assuming it's a common arrangement).