I read this on the paper (yes, I do read paper sometimes) and had to find this online to quote and link. But here it is at the USA Today:
High-speed Internet access is so important to the welfare of U.S. consumers that America can't afford not to offer it — free of charge — to anybody who wants it, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin says.
"There's a social obligation in making sure everybody can participate in the next generation of broadband services because, increasingly, that's what people want," he says.
Martin hopes to use a chunk of wireless airwaves due to hit the auction block next year to help turn his vision into reality. Some cellphone operators are objecting.
"Some cellphone operators are objecting". O'RLY?
We are not even close to this yet, here in New Zealand.
PC Fun - that's Politically Correct...
Lets see, time for a bit of a challenge - with a minutiae of assistance from bored dot com's list of politically correct terms.
A fable of gargantuan proportions. Not. (Or should that read 'Un'?)
Back in the Chronologically gifted days, lived a displaced home owner. Now this non-discretionally scented individual could hold his/her/it's posessions (sorry, I couldn't find one for this) in a processed tree carcass. The local youth group from the barrio-ethnically homogenous area more than several times attempted to reverse-love (that's mine, folks, but you can borrow it) the above-mentioned non-specifically destinated individual.
The local law enforcement officer/s, being uniquely proficient in their own area of expertise (which means nothing, basically) held that this non-random earth child was actually a member of the mental explorers club. In other words he/she/it was one of the selectively perceptive. Or just non-adorned motivationally dispossed. A uniquley fortuned individual on an alternative career path. Kinesthetically challenged, the size ten clod-hoppers would treat the unaffiliated applicant for private sector funding to a time of leisure-seeking within the fenced-in boundaries of the non-global correctional institution.
There was less than something but I mean Far Less that the client didn't hate than a good prescription's worth of constructive feminist (non-masculine) psychtherapy, where he would have a conjoined meeting nasally with persons of the difficult-to-meet needs variety, cost of living adjustment speciallists and other least-best men of differing unclean-lucre gathering skills. PIndividuals of the non-doubtful trickster persuasion.
After more than one of these hourly or more appointments our in-vain-man-with-his-underwear-on-the-outside-of-his-tights was led to a non-planned re-examination of previously digested food choices. This being the learning outcome of the economically marginalised human, the powers that exist in an ongoing time continuum were manipulated in a hand-tied-behind-the-back manner perspicuous to the event in hand (but not-tied before the retro spinal-osteo-varietal [variety]) to open the door of opportunity and rotate an un-seeing optic to the outwoard travelling of the victim of society.
Have I lost you completely yet? I will finish on a positive sounding musical-verbosity...
He/she/it veered off the chosen path to find himself the nearest rapid-nutrition outlet and bought himself a non metric measurement of seared mutilated animal flesh. Transitionlising his non-counter ego into a petroleum transfer technician, with over the top designs of one sunshine-filled twelve hours of becoming a garbologist in the university of non-deadness, our inept exterior-undie wearer existed in a basically existential existance neither sadly nor tearfully in what is known as an any-number-divided-by zero time zone.
Now wasn't that uniquely proficient of the person who environmentally non-correctly behind this dermis?
Google looked at the The World Market for Coal for power generation.
I found this video interesting,� more so because it was released at the same time as Nationals new energy plans. One point in the lecture from David Victor Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. David pointed out that gas produces half the carbon emissions of coal.�Nationals "or yeah" has designs that produce only a 3rd compared with coal.�Coal still really produces alot of nasties so is + 3 rd ok. This video points figure to the cost's of emissions and show projections for the future. Carbon�sequestration is also examined in this interesting lecture from an interesting speaker. Quote Google talk:
The success of Google's "RE less than C" initiative hinges on coal (C). This talk will review major developments in the coal industry worldwide and explain why coal will be very difficult to unseat in the emerging markets where growth in consumption is most rapid. In the industrialized world the situation is different, and the recent explosion in the cost of building and operating new coal-fired power plants means that in some settings renewable energy (RE) already cheaper than coal. Yet the coal industry has never been so competitive as it is today, and it is possible that coal could remain a dominant energy source even in a carbon-constrained world. So far, however, actual investment in the new technologies needed to make coal competitive has been about two orders of magnitude less than needed.
Bad Question On "Anti Anti Smacking Referendum"
So it appears that the petition which was calling for a referendum on the "anti smacking bill" (which was very poorly named so by the media, if it has been called the "anti whacking kids so hard it causes injury bill" not many people would complain I'm sure) was verified as achieving the level required to trigger a referendum. That's great and all, democracy in work, I don't need to agree with the premise to agree with your right to be heard.
BUT
Am I the only person to see the serious flaw. Here's the question that the petition, and apparently the forthcoming referendum will pose:
"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
Seems innocuous enough you say. But let's break it down...
If you say "Yes it should be illegal" to on the face of it indicate that you are "anti smacking" then by the terms of reference you are indicating that you think that "good parental correction" should be criminal.
The question has asserted the answer it wants, it states that "a smack [is a] part of good parental correction" before it even gets to asking the question about that!
So it puts anybody with half a mind in a real quandry when this referendum (which appears will be a postal ballot next year) arrives, at least if you are opposed to phyical discipline. I think I'll simply return the ballot voided to indicate that the question is invalid.
Now, I don't know the rules regarding referenda, but if the government is not bound to use the same question as was posed in the petition, then perhaps somebody in government could come up with a fairer question to ask,
No comments:
Post a Comment