If you want a nice place to go to the loo then come to my beautiful town, Te Awamutu! It has been named by the Keep New Zealand Beautiful Society as the winner in the Best Public Toilet category! The chief executive of the society said: "A lot can be told about a place from its loos, so Te Awamutu must be a great place to live." So when you think of nice toilets you think of Te Awamutu!!
See:
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=124745
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Free toll calls for the Waikato region!
At last, a phone company has done the sensible thing and got rid of all the toll boundaries for the Waikato:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0709/S00206.htm
TelstraClear have announced that we can now call anywhere in the Waikato for free! This is excellent! The toll boundaries around here imposed by Telcom were crazy! I live in Te Awamutu and I can call Kawhia for free, but not Hamilton or Otorohanga which are much closer. When I lived in Otorohanga last year I could only call Otorohanga for free (90% of my phone calls were outside Otorohanga). Calling Te Kuiti (a 15 minute drive away) was a toll call.
I am so happy now I left that hopeless Telecom and joined TelstraClear a couple of years ago.
See: www.bigbackyard.co.nz
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0709/S00206.htm
TelstraClear have announced that we can now call anywhere in the Waikato for free! This is excellent! The toll boundaries around here imposed by Telcom were crazy! I live in Te Awamutu and I can call Kawhia for free, but not Hamilton or Otorohanga which are much closer. When I lived in Otorohanga last year I could only call Otorohanga for free (90% of my phone calls were outside Otorohanga). Calling Te Kuiti (a 15 minute drive away) was a toll call.
I am so happy now I left that hopeless Telecom and joined TelstraClear a couple of years ago.
See: www.bigbackyard.co.nz
Saturday, September 15, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth?
Today I finally got to see the Al Gore documentary movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. And it is an “inconvenient truth” for a lot of people, especially our politicians. This movie has had an effect on me and I didn’t think that it would.
Global warming had been a topic that I have been quite sceptical of – especially living here in New Zealand. I feel that the older I get the colder the winters get, and I often say “I can’t wait for that global warming to kick in!” But now that I look back at this winter I must say that it has been milder than usual. I’m sure we haven’t had as many frosts as usual. Usually well into September (even further) we still have frosts, however this week we have had two days near the 20° mark. I’m not alone in thinking that we have had fewer frosts. This article from The Dominion Post last month says the same thing:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4162466a11.html
I have always been a fan of Al Gore and I believe he should have become president of the United States in 2000 instead of that idiot George W Bush. After all, Al Gore got 48.4% of the vote and Bush got 47.9%. I’d go as far to say that 9/11 may not have happened the way it did if Al Gore was president. I’m not the only one who thinks this:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070913043019AAHltQ3
Let’s have a look at some of the facts from the movie. Now I see no reason to dispute these facts, but then again statistics can be altered and presented in any way to suit your own purposes. So I have done a little research myself to see what I can come up with. The movie says that the ten hottest years ever measured have all occurred in the last fourteen years. Wikipedia has a page showing the warmest years on record since 1880. This table shows that the 17 warmest years on record occurred within the last 20 years!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880
The movie says the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years. Apparently intensity in Hurricanes (and other tropical storms such as cyclones and typhoons) increases with rises in ocean temperature. This page on Wikipedia says a similar thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricanes#Long_term_activity_trends
The movie says the flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade. Glaciers around the world do appear to be shrinking, as this page on Wikipedia shows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Glacier_retreat_and_disappearance
Those are just a few of the many things that Al Gore mentioned in the movie. Wikipedia has a page which says a lot of interesting things about this movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_inconvenient_truth
Here’s a few of the things that are mentioned:
The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie said that Gore conveyed the science correctly.
In contrast, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, at the time chaired by Republican Senator Jim Inhofe issued a press release criticizing this article. Inhofe's statement that "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" appears in the film. (Trust a Republican to say that!)
RealClimate, a group blog maintained by eleven climate scientists, lauded the film's science as "remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research."
Michael Shermer, scientific author and founder of The Skeptics Society, wrote in Scientific American that An Inconvenient Truth "shocked me out of my doubting stance". (Same with me)
President Bush, when asked whether he would watch the film, responded: "Doubt it."
In September 2006, Gore traveled to Sydney, Australia to promote the film. Australian Prime Minister, John Howard said he would not meet with Gore or agree to Kyoto because of the movie: "I don't take policy advice from films." Former Opposition Leader Kim Beazley joined Gore for a viewing and other MPs attended a special screening at Parliament House earlier in the week.
At the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, the movie received three standing ovations.
The film received a positive reaction from critics. It garnered a "certified fresh" 93% rating at Rotten Tomatoes (as of May 21, 2007), with a 94% rating from the "Cream of the Crop" reviewers. Film critics Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper gave the film "two thumbs up".
And most importantly, The film won the 2006 Academy Award for Documentary Feature.
Of course there is political and economic opposition to things mentioned in this film. To some governments and a lot of corporates profits are much more important than the environment. Remember if we don’t have an Earth to live on then what’s the point of wealth? The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty on climate change. It assigns mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the signatory nations. As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement. Two notable exceptions include the United States and Australia (lead, in my opinion, by two of the greatest idiots in world politics at the moment – George W Bush and Johnny Howard). Australia is one of the biggest emitters on a per capita basis, and the United States was, as of 2005, the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
The most recent APEC summit was held just earlier this month in Sydney, Australia. During this summit Bush and Howard cuddled up to each other as usual. They proposed nuclear energy as a solution to global warming. What??!! Does no one remember Chernobyl in 1986?? The "Sydney Declaration on Climate Change" was signed on 8 September 2007 by the leaders present at APEC. It indicates the wish of signatories to work towards non-binding "aspirational" goals on energy efficiency per unit of GDP. Notice the words “non-binding”. Brilliant! That ain’t going to help anything! See this Wikipedia page for more on APEC 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APEC_Australia_2007
Being a Christian I strongly believe that we are in the last days and that the Second Coming of Jesus is not too far away. So is global warming a result of human’s CO2 emissions or a sign of the last days? Let’s have a look at a couple of scriptures.
Matthew 24:7
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
Doctrine and Covenants 88:87
For not many days hence and the earth shall tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man; and the sun shall hide his face, and shall refuse to give light; and the moon shall be bathed in blood; and the stars shall become exceedingly angry, and shall cast themselves down as a fig that falleth from off a fig-tree.
It could be a bit of both – signs of the last days and human cause. So in both these cases there are things we need to do. Now I don’t want to become a greenie or a “tree-hugging hippy” but there are little things we can do to help out. Perhaps the little things we do won’t help the world’s environment significantly, but it’s a start. We can use those energy-efficient light bulbs. I have a couple in my place. Apparently they last much longer and use up less electricity. Recycle as much of your refuse as you can. They make it easy for us here in the Waipa District by providing special blue bins that we can chuck our old bottles etc into. These bins are free – which is better that putting all my rubbish into bags which cost money! And if you are fortunate enough to live in a city with a good public transport system then use it! Why use up petrol (and patience) by getting stuck in traffic jams every day?! At the same time we need to prepare ourselves for the Second Coming of Christ. Read your scriptures and go to church to find out howJ. Here’s a good article from the Ensign magazine which goes along with this:
http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3613b850e318b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Whilst I enjoyed the movie and am starting to accept a lot of things that Al Gore was saying, I don’t believe that things will deteriorate as fast as he suggests (such as temperature rise and the rise of sea levels). But if you have not seen “An Inconvenient Truth” then make sure you do. I think it should be a must see for everyone. If you live in Australia then vote for Labor later this year, and if you live in the USA then vote for the Democrats next year!
For more information about the movie see:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_inconvenient_truth
Global warming had been a topic that I have been quite sceptical of – especially living here in New Zealand. I feel that the older I get the colder the winters get, and I often say “I can’t wait for that global warming to kick in!” But now that I look back at this winter I must say that it has been milder than usual. I’m sure we haven’t had as many frosts as usual. Usually well into September (even further) we still have frosts, however this week we have had two days near the 20° mark. I’m not alone in thinking that we have had fewer frosts. This article from The Dominion Post last month says the same thing:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4162466a11.html
I have always been a fan of Al Gore and I believe he should have become president of the United States in 2000 instead of that idiot George W Bush. After all, Al Gore got 48.4% of the vote and Bush got 47.9%. I’d go as far to say that 9/11 may not have happened the way it did if Al Gore was president. I’m not the only one who thinks this:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070913043019AAHltQ3
Let’s have a look at some of the facts from the movie. Now I see no reason to dispute these facts, but then again statistics can be altered and presented in any way to suit your own purposes. So I have done a little research myself to see what I can come up with. The movie says that the ten hottest years ever measured have all occurred in the last fourteen years. Wikipedia has a page showing the warmest years on record since 1880. This table shows that the 17 warmest years on record occurred within the last 20 years!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880
The movie says the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years. Apparently intensity in Hurricanes (and other tropical storms such as cyclones and typhoons) increases with rises in ocean temperature. This page on Wikipedia says a similar thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricanes#Long_term_activity_trends
The movie says the flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade. Glaciers around the world do appear to be shrinking, as this page on Wikipedia shows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Glacier_retreat_and_disappearance
Those are just a few of the many things that Al Gore mentioned in the movie. Wikipedia has a page which says a lot of interesting things about this movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_inconvenient_truth
Here’s a few of the things that are mentioned:
The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie said that Gore conveyed the science correctly.
In contrast, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, at the time chaired by Republican Senator Jim Inhofe issued a press release criticizing this article. Inhofe's statement that "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" appears in the film. (Trust a Republican to say that!)
RealClimate, a group blog maintained by eleven climate scientists, lauded the film's science as "remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research."
Michael Shermer, scientific author and founder of The Skeptics Society, wrote in Scientific American that An Inconvenient Truth "shocked me out of my doubting stance". (Same with me)
President Bush, when asked whether he would watch the film, responded: "Doubt it."
In September 2006, Gore traveled to Sydney, Australia to promote the film. Australian Prime Minister, John Howard said he would not meet with Gore or agree to Kyoto because of the movie: "I don't take policy advice from films." Former Opposition Leader Kim Beazley joined Gore for a viewing and other MPs attended a special screening at Parliament House earlier in the week.
At the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, the movie received three standing ovations.
The film received a positive reaction from critics. It garnered a "certified fresh" 93% rating at Rotten Tomatoes (as of May 21, 2007), with a 94% rating from the "Cream of the Crop" reviewers. Film critics Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper gave the film "two thumbs up".
And most importantly, The film won the 2006 Academy Award for Documentary Feature.
Of course there is political and economic opposition to things mentioned in this film. To some governments and a lot of corporates profits are much more important than the environment. Remember if we don’t have an Earth to live on then what’s the point of wealth? The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty on climate change. It assigns mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the signatory nations. As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement. Two notable exceptions include the United States and Australia (lead, in my opinion, by two of the greatest idiots in world politics at the moment – George W Bush and Johnny Howard). Australia is one of the biggest emitters on a per capita basis, and the United States was, as of 2005, the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
The most recent APEC summit was held just earlier this month in Sydney, Australia. During this summit Bush and Howard cuddled up to each other as usual. They proposed nuclear energy as a solution to global warming. What??!! Does no one remember Chernobyl in 1986?? The "Sydney Declaration on Climate Change" was signed on 8 September 2007 by the leaders present at APEC. It indicates the wish of signatories to work towards non-binding "aspirational" goals on energy efficiency per unit of GDP. Notice the words “non-binding”. Brilliant! That ain’t going to help anything! See this Wikipedia page for more on APEC 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APEC_Australia_2007
Being a Christian I strongly believe that we are in the last days and that the Second Coming of Jesus is not too far away. So is global warming a result of human’s CO2 emissions or a sign of the last days? Let’s have a look at a couple of scriptures.
Matthew 24:7
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
Doctrine and Covenants 88:87
For not many days hence and the earth shall tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man; and the sun shall hide his face, and shall refuse to give light; and the moon shall be bathed in blood; and the stars shall become exceedingly angry, and shall cast themselves down as a fig that falleth from off a fig-tree.
It could be a bit of both – signs of the last days and human cause. So in both these cases there are things we need to do. Now I don’t want to become a greenie or a “tree-hugging hippy” but there are little things we can do to help out. Perhaps the little things we do won’t help the world’s environment significantly, but it’s a start. We can use those energy-efficient light bulbs. I have a couple in my place. Apparently they last much longer and use up less electricity. Recycle as much of your refuse as you can. They make it easy for us here in the Waipa District by providing special blue bins that we can chuck our old bottles etc into. These bins are free – which is better that putting all my rubbish into bags which cost money! And if you are fortunate enough to live in a city with a good public transport system then use it! Why use up petrol (and patience) by getting stuck in traffic jams every day?! At the same time we need to prepare ourselves for the Second Coming of Christ. Read your scriptures and go to church to find out howJ. Here’s a good article from the Ensign magazine which goes along with this:
http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3613b850e318b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Whilst I enjoyed the movie and am starting to accept a lot of things that Al Gore was saying, I don’t believe that things will deteriorate as fast as he suggests (such as temperature rise and the rise of sea levels). But if you have not seen “An Inconvenient Truth” then make sure you do. I think it should be a must see for everyone. If you live in Australia then vote for Labor later this year, and if you live in the USA then vote for the Democrats next year!
For more information about the movie see:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_inconvenient_truth
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Bush's alien overlord peeks through window during speech
Someone pointed out this CNN video of Bush giving a talk on subprime mortgages. Check out the alien behind the window in the background. [Above Bush's right shoulder].
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/07/bushs-alien-overlord.html
Friday, September 07, 2007
Sky TV vs TVNZ
You may have heard some rumours recently that TV One and TV2 are no longer going to be on Sky Digital. Well, this is true, but not until 2011. This is when their contract expires.
TVNZ are starting their new channel called “TVNZ 6” and the end of this month, but it will only be on Freeview. This means to see this channel you will need to purchase a Freeview receiver, costing between $200-$300 (not exactly free is it!) However, this new channel is not going to be available on Sky Digital. Now hang on, I understand that $79 million of taxpayers money is going towards TVNZ’s digital channels. So then shouldn’t these new government funded channels be on Sky Digital so that more of the country’s taxpayers can view them? There are far more Sky subscribers in NZ compared to Freeview so why should we fork out for another decoder?? Some of that $79 million is mine too!
But there appears to be some tit-for-tat going on between TVNZ and Sky TV. TVNZ aren’t going to put its TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7 channels on Sky Digital and Sky TV aren’t going to put Prime on Freeview. A bit childish if you ask me. That’s one main reason why I don’t want to get rid of Sky TV and get Freeview instead because I watch a lot of great programmes on Prime such as Star Trek, Doctor Who, America’s Got Talent, The Late Show, and of course the rugby and league coverage!
So what do they do in this situation in other countries? Let’s have a look at the example of the BBC in the UK. BBC carries all their channels on their Freeview service and on Britain’s Sky TV service! Even Sky TV broadcast some of their channels on Freeview! Wake up Television New Zealand!
But then is it really worth getting Freeview for this new TVNZ 6? Most of the programmes are going to be reruns, such as: Fraggle Rock, Country Calendar, Mai Time, It’s in the Bag, and Shortland Street. Heck, I think I’ll stick with Sky TV!
Here’s some websites about this:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4187772a13.html
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/Jama/3672
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/09/totally_unacceptable_tvnz.html
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/tvnz_6_index_skin/tvnz_6_index_group
TVNZ are starting their new channel called “TVNZ 6” and the end of this month, but it will only be on Freeview. This means to see this channel you will need to purchase a Freeview receiver, costing between $200-$300 (not exactly free is it!) However, this new channel is not going to be available on Sky Digital. Now hang on, I understand that $79 million of taxpayers money is going towards TVNZ’s digital channels. So then shouldn’t these new government funded channels be on Sky Digital so that more of the country’s taxpayers can view them? There are far more Sky subscribers in NZ compared to Freeview so why should we fork out for another decoder?? Some of that $79 million is mine too!
But there appears to be some tit-for-tat going on between TVNZ and Sky TV. TVNZ aren’t going to put its TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7 channels on Sky Digital and Sky TV aren’t going to put Prime on Freeview. A bit childish if you ask me. That’s one main reason why I don’t want to get rid of Sky TV and get Freeview instead because I watch a lot of great programmes on Prime such as Star Trek, Doctor Who, America’s Got Talent, The Late Show, and of course the rugby and league coverage!
So what do they do in this situation in other countries? Let’s have a look at the example of the BBC in the UK. BBC carries all their channels on their Freeview service and on Britain’s Sky TV service! Even Sky TV broadcast some of their channels on Freeview! Wake up Television New Zealand!
But then is it really worth getting Freeview for this new TVNZ 6? Most of the programmes are going to be reruns, such as: Fraggle Rock, Country Calendar, Mai Time, It’s in the Bag, and Shortland Street. Heck, I think I’ll stick with Sky TV!
Here’s some websites about this:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4187772a13.html
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/Jama/3672
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/09/totally_unacceptable_tvnz.html
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/tvnz_6_index_skin/tvnz_6_index_group
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
