Given the fact that power generating wind turbines only poke up 30-50m from the surface, I fail to see how the effects are going to be as significant as Keith suggests. Surface winds are already moderated by friction and topographically generated turbulence, while the vast bulk of wind energy exists above the boundary layer. We're unlikely to deploy large wind farms in a linear sequence anyway, so atmospheric coupling means surface winds will only be affected for a finite distance downstream of a given facility.
Bang on. And our Prime Minister, who by law oversees the GCSB, has evaded, dissembled, obfuscated, changed stories and had "memory lapses" in his various explanations of what he knew and when regarding this case. The government is going to great lengths to avoid showing what a precarious position it's in and how easily its hold on power could vanish if some embarrassing revelations come to light.
Argon was just showing how noble he was.
Mary?? As in "Virgin Mary?" You had that god all right!
Warm. Sparkling. Punchy. Silken. Pristine. Thumping. Brilliant. Dynamic. Crystalline.
And the best modifier of them all: Audiophile-quality.
Hmm. I'm in New Zealand too and you need to check your sources. More than half of our generation is hydro and the remainder comprises natural gas, geothermal, coal and wind. Oil doesn't even come into the picture unless the Whirinakl diesel plant gets fired up to cope with a massive shortage such as a cold snap during a winter when the South Island dams are abnormally low due to drought.
From the almighty Wikipedia:
"A total of 43,401 GWh was generated in New Zealand in 2010. Of the electricity generated, it composed of 56.4% hydroelectricity, 21.2% natural gas, 12.8% geothermal, 4.5% coal, 3.7% wind, 0.1% oil, and 1.4% other sources." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_New_Zealand
It's hardly reasonable. I'm also a Kiwi, and I'll tell you what's wrong with the law:
1) Infringement notices are deemed valid on their face and not subject to review of their methodology.
2) Presumption of guilt on the part of the alleged infringer, which runs counter to the established notion of common law which heretofore held sway in NZ.
3) The tribunal does not have the same procedures as a normal court of law, in spite of its ability to hand down punishment. Rules of evidence and testimony are cut down, and the accused does not have any right to counsel.
4) If and when the tribunal gains the power to order service termination, a wrongly accused individual could lose internet connectivity with no recourse available.
5) The manner in which it was passed (under urgency) was a flagrant abuse of parliamentary procedure, and only a handful of MPs voted against it. Wikileaks has published diplomatic cables which document the meddling input of the US Embassy in crafting and shepherding the legislation, making New Zealand look ever more like a sad little banana republic eager to turn a trick for the rich foreigners.
The law reeks, almost as much as the government which imposed it. God save WB.
This certainly might have prolonged Gopher's viability.
Yes, tarsnap is brilliant from a technical perspective as well as the pricing model.
Your kneejerk response hits you in the cognitive centers.
If you "life" up north and have sufficient ceiling insulation, then if you have a dark roof you will have a warmer attic on sunny days. All the rest of the time you will notice little effect on the amount of heat leaving your dwelling no matter what color your roof is. If your ceiling is not sufficiently insulated, then you have bigger problems to deal with.
If all roofs in urban areas were painted white, it would have a significant effect on the heat island effect. This would have positive implications for residents of multistory buildings at all levels...including when they are not even in their apartments. You could do a little exercise in thinking up other effects: e.g. businesses spending less on air conditioning.
Just because you have some insane, media-driven obsession with the dude who was turfed by a corrupt justice in the 2000 US presidential election doesn't mean you should ignore things like albedo.
We asked the monkey for his response to events of the day. "Shocked!" he said.
Have you read the text of the bill and its amendments? See the part where an allegation of infringement is treated as a presumption of guilt? Did you notice that the burden of proof is carefully placed on the accused? And how the tribunal process specifically bars lawyers from attending the proceedings? It's all in there, sections 122A-R.
Retrograde, totalitarian and undemocratic. It's a shakedown ploy for the media giants and a bad law in multiple ways. Are you shilling for Hollywood or just misinformed?
Something dangerous, indeed. It's an extremist, ACT-inspired corporate agenda cloaked in friendly-sounding centre-right soundbites. We got the affable investment banker at the helm, and he and his minions are gleefully carving up what's left of the public domain after the twin debacles of Rogernomics and Ruthanasia a generation ago. By the time the punters wake up, the trans-Pacific handover will be a done deal and we'll be serving either Chinese or USian overlords, on alternating days of the week.
He happens to be the MP for my electorate, too...never been too happy with the bloke but this takes the cake.
To the Hon. Simon Power -
I am appalled at the decision to pass the Copyright Amendment Act under urgency this week, and even more so at the retention of the account termination provision which has been left in the bill. Your championing of this measure shows a callous disregard for due process at the individual level and for democratic process at the parliamentary level. The errors committed in passing this legislation, which amounts to a 20th-century solution for a 19th-century business model faced with a 21st-century problem, are grave and will be difficult to undo.
Points which need to be understood in this matter are as follows:
1) Copyright infringement is a civil matter. By placing ordinary citizens under threat of onerous and disproportionate consequences for alleged offences, this legislation criminalises an action which should rather be resolved in civil proceedings and places ISPs and Crown authority in the position of acting as enforcers for large media and publishing interests. I need not remind you that these interests are nearly all overseas, so in essence you are ceding another piece of New Zealand sovereignty at the behest of international lobbyists.
2) Internet access is ubiquitous enough to be considered a utility. Most households rely on their internet connectivity for at least some portion of their daily communications, including email, voice and access to work, school, commercial and public services. If you would have us believe that there is logical justification for termination of internet connectivity as a consequence of infringement, then you need to be able to make a similar case for cutting off someone's water, phone, power and post, as any of these could further someone's ability to break the law.
3) The move to pass the bill under urgency is cynical and undemocratic. The far-reaching implications of a law which could quite conceivably deprive New Zealanders of their ability to communicate via commonplace and ordinary means in the face of allegations by foreign content providers require a full public airing and transparency. Sneaking it in amongst the firewood signals your unwillingness to have an honest debate about what is actually at stake here and shows once again how this Government uses parliamentary process to act in a unitary fashion. The cover provided by the ongoing Canterbury putsch is only too convenient.
I reside in the Rangitikei electorate and have never felt so inadequately represented (or so ably misrepresented). Please, Mr Power, leave the Government now before you do any further damage to our country.