It's been a weird week. Monday I had a croaky voice, which some of the girls at work actually thought was sexy.What's with that? Tuesday morning I had to go to work at 430 am. But I had no voice whatsoever. So I persevered for two hours, explaining to every new customer that I had lost my voice in a raspy whisper that was nothing short of embarrassing. So I got replaced at 6am and went home. Most of the rest of the week was spent whispering and coughing.
I couldn't wait any longer. I had to check The Bachelor website to see who Jason picks. And of ALL the bachelorettes he has to chose from, I would have chosen Melissa. Cute. Funky. Oh, and big boobs. Who did Jason pick. Well, Melissa of course. But apparently she "changed" after the final rose ceremony and he dumped her and proposed to Molly instead. Oh well.
I've decided the Internet SUX! Obviously it has it uses, but so too does it have some serious limitations. Somehow I imagine the Internet to be something like the computer on the Enterprise or the one in I, Robot. What was her name? Vicki? Anyway, it's like you ask a question, and no matter how obscure the question or distant the event or person, the answer is right before you in a matter of nano-seconds. Comprehensive, complete. Literally the entire gammut of knowledge at your fingertips.
But no. I'm looking for names, people, dates. Prominent Christchurch people from the era (1910-1945). Nothin. Well, not nothin, but so little. Next to nothin. So I start digging at the public library. Not much. National Library. Nothin. Alexander Turnbull Library online. His name. No link. No info. Births Deaths and Marriages. No help. Every major search engine. Nothin.
So obviously the Internet is useless. So I start trawling hard copies of newspapers (well, microfiche) and it's like a needle in a haystack. Prominent Christchurch people and events have NOTHING recorded about them.
But then I'm thinking THIS is what I was born to do. It's frustrating but I'm loving it. I was born to research. When I was working at Canterbury University as a researcher I loved it. I felt like I was in my element.
And I think I'm onto something. Either nobody's bothered to do the research, or somebody has tried and hit a wall and gave up. Hopefully it's the former and the latter doesn't happen to me. Two of the top "experts" at Canterbury haven't heard of my people, but agree it's worth pursuing.
Could be a book in it.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
"I sh******** p******"
I think they've got the syntax right, but the actual words wrong.
When I heard the recording of Bain's 111 call, the unedited version, it was just so obvious that I can't believe seven world "experts" couldn't figure out what he was saying. It's clear.
There's definitely a "sh" sound, and I'm pretty sure there's a "p" sound. And it's unlikely that he would call 111 and then admit to killing his father.
He didn't say "I shot the prick." He was so clearly saying "I shit my pants" that I'm thinking of calling the defence team to help them dispel this silly rumour that he's saying "I shot the prick." Hullo! If I can figure that out, how come these seven figure salaried experts can't agree?
When I heard the recording of Bain's 111 call, the unedited version, it was just so obvious that I can't believe seven world "experts" couldn't figure out what he was saying. It's clear.
There's definitely a "sh" sound, and I'm pretty sure there's a "p" sound. And it's unlikely that he would call 111 and then admit to killing his father.
He didn't say "I shot the prick." He was so clearly saying "I shit my pants" that I'm thinking of calling the defence team to help them dispel this silly rumour that he's saying "I shot the prick." Hullo! If I can figure that out, how come these seven figure salaried experts can't agree?
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Plain dishonest
Two of the things that bug me the most are poor service, and misleading advertising. Unfortunately, the wonderful, modern society we have created is bursting at the seams with both.We were at the Warehouse, looking for some t-shirts for Chris. We see this sign. We like the Match brand t-shirts hanging behind this sign. 25% off sounds good. We grab a couple. I want one for me. I grab another one. At the counter we discover the t-shirts we have are not on sale.
Hmm . . . I could have sworn they were.
Not wishing to make a scene, however, I buy them anyway, at full price. Oh well, it's only five bucks more, eh. Each.
But then I got to thinking. I'm sure Match clothing was on sale. Now it's the principle. I sent Chris to the foyer and I went back to the rack. Took this photo. All Match clothing 25% off. Went back to the Service (LOL) Desk.
Now, this is where I really begin to get annoyed.
Apparently, ALL Match clothes are on sale except "t-shirts". The shirts we have are, of course, t-shirts. There's nothing I could do. I could probably get a refund. But we like the shirts. So I skulk away, beaten.
And here's what I think. They do it ON PURPOSE. They have all these SALE signs around, but exclude some items from the sale, acknowledging it only in the fine print. They KNOW that by the time you get to the counter, you've already made the sale in your head, and will likely, even if grudgingly, pay full price. And if that's not enough to hawk their goods, the final assurance they have is that most people will not want to make a scene at the check-out counter, with, invariably, a line of frustrated shoppers behind them.
If that sign is not misleading to an unsuspecting public, then what is?
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Opinion! Opinion! Opinion!
When it emerged that NZers had apparently been overcharged 4.3 billion dollars by electricity companies using their market power, one word sprung to my mind. And it is a word I have yet to hear or read officially associated with this scandal.
How many times in the past years have we been told in dire terms of the imminent shortage of electricity, and how seriously me must conserve it. Oh, and because of the shortage, the wholesale price of electricity has to rise. Only, there never have been power cuts. I've had 19 winters in Christchurch and I have never experienced a power cut. But the price of electricity has increased, often on the back of perceived shortages.
Arguably one of the biggest industrial scandals of all time was when California suffered rolling electricity blackouts, allegedly because of diminished supply. It was, apparently, not because of lack of supply, but rather because Enron needed, one, to prop up their house of cards, and two, to make ever increasing profits for the top executives, who, while telling their investors to buy more and more Enron shares, were secretly dumping their own shares knowing that the house of cards was about to crumble.
There was no shortage of electricity in California. Blackouts were contrived to provide a reason to hike up the wholesale price. Enron traders were recorded laughing about this scenario and the potential profit it would bring. They were literally laughing all the way to the bank.
Isn't the connection palpable? Every winter we are warned of possible power cuts that never come. Every winter the price of electricity goes up, on the basis of that potential short supply.
While a little . . okay, a lot simplistic, the question should be raised whether, in context, Enron was a major contributing factor to the entire world recession. To bankrupt the world's fifth largest economy is no mean feat. That, on the back of the S&L fallout, certainly punctuated the global advance toward recession.
This makes interesting reading. I would love to see some of the connections to authority in New Zealand of those in charge of the electricity industry here.
How many times in the past years have we been told in dire terms of the imminent shortage of electricity, and how seriously me must conserve it. Oh, and because of the shortage, the wholesale price of electricity has to rise. Only, there never have been power cuts. I've had 19 winters in Christchurch and I have never experienced a power cut. But the price of electricity has increased, often on the back of perceived shortages.
Arguably one of the biggest industrial scandals of all time was when California suffered rolling electricity blackouts, allegedly because of diminished supply. It was, apparently, not because of lack of supply, but rather because Enron needed, one, to prop up their house of cards, and two, to make ever increasing profits for the top executives, who, while telling their investors to buy more and more Enron shares, were secretly dumping their own shares knowing that the house of cards was about to crumble.
There was no shortage of electricity in California. Blackouts were contrived to provide a reason to hike up the wholesale price. Enron traders were recorded laughing about this scenario and the potential profit it would bring. They were literally laughing all the way to the bank.
Isn't the connection palpable? Every winter we are warned of possible power cuts that never come. Every winter the price of electricity goes up, on the basis of that potential short supply.
While a little . . okay, a lot simplistic, the question should be raised whether, in context, Enron was a major contributing factor to the entire world recession. To bankrupt the world's fifth largest economy is no mean feat. That, on the back of the S&L fallout, certainly punctuated the global advance toward recession.
This makes interesting reading. I would love to see some of the connections to authority in New Zealand of those in charge of the electricity industry here.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Dollars for drongoes
Banking is like any industry, and has two things. Insider knowledge and jokes about processes and customers. And cock-ups. (Technically that may be three things, but the jokes thing is more a corollary of the first, not an independent "thing").
To the banking industry's credit, I am surprised mistakes this big don't happen more often than they do. People are coming out of the woodwork with their own stories of mistakes made by banks, which only goes to show that it DOES happen more than we're aware of. If Gao hadn't run with the money we wouldn't have heard anything about it until the next public gaff. Then Gao would be coming out of the woodwork saying he he was given ten million dollars by the bank, and having a good laugh about it.
Two other things are interesting. How badly the media have reported it, and, as is only just starting to happen, how Westpac is coming under more scrutiny about it's working conditions than I'm sure it wants to.
First, I heard, a Rotorua businessman had been given a "7 figure" deposit in error. Now 7 figures, if my math is correct, is 9,999,999 or less. The media was reporting at the same time that is was also $10m. Which is, of course, an "8 figure" sum.
Then we heard Gao had taken off with the ten million dollars. Then we heard that it was only six million he'd escaped with, Westpac had recovered four million. Then we heard Gao had applied for a ten thousand dollar overdraft, and we had to assume it had mistakenly been made a ten million dollar overdraft. Which is significantly different to a ten million dollar deposit to his account. Some bozo was saying on the news that there were checks and balances and if a 10m deposit had been made one of the balances would have been out (which is not necessarily true).
In today's SST, it seems confirmed that a 100,000 dollar overdraft limit was mistakenly turned into a 10m dollar one, which is much easier to understand because all that's required there is to drop the decimal point. Now it makes sense. I was trying to figure out in my head how ten thousand had become ten million via only a simple mistake. Harder to turn ten thousand into ten million, than a hundred thousand.
But also reported today is that Westpac is "vigorously pursuing" the outstanding 3.8 million. Huh? Where did that figure come from?
Point is, in the rush to get the story out, the media just grabbed any old numbers that vaguley fit the story, no matter how incorrect they were.
So it seems Westpac is only out 4m, with liens of at least a couple of million over properties in Rotorua and Auckland (if the media can be believed). So the bottom line is Westpac is only out by an amount similar to the CEO's bonus.
Which brings us nicely to Westpac's strong desire, I'm sure, to not get too much egg on it's face. It was only a matter of time before FINSEC made the connection between such a mistake and Wetspac's staff being under too much pressure. This mistake has nothing to do with staff being under too much pressure. It's a simple mistake, the kind made by the banking industry DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of times A DAY. Most of them are picked up by the checks and balance system. But some ALWAYS get missed.
To be fair, even in this financial environment, ten million dollars is not a lot of money, and if it ends up being a million or two, then in banking that is chicken feed. Bad debts of that amount are written off regularly.
Obviously Westpac doesn't want to set a precedent, otherwise the stuff ups they make every day will start costing them. If they make a mistake of only a thousand dollars, and you spend the money, are they going to pursue it? I doubt it. Ten thousand? Maybe. They just want people to think that if they overpay you you HAVE to pay it back. Which technically you do. However, the question is how hard will they pursue you for it.
Mostly, they don't want you to think they are incompetent, which they are not (well, relatively speaking).
But obviously Gao is incompetent. Why not transfer the whole amount to his mother's bank account in China and DISAPPEAR. The sister-in-law (so to speak) is gloating on Facebook? Geez. What a moron. They'll be caught and in a gesture of global good will China will extradite them. Westpac will cut their losses, but send them to jail anyway. It'll be old news by next week, and we'll only hear more about it later when they're caught, then jailed.
If Gao had any brains he would be holed up somewhere in deepest darkest China counting his Yuan.
To the banking industry's credit, I am surprised mistakes this big don't happen more often than they do. People are coming out of the woodwork with their own stories of mistakes made by banks, which only goes to show that it DOES happen more than we're aware of. If Gao hadn't run with the money we wouldn't have heard anything about it until the next public gaff. Then Gao would be coming out of the woodwork saying he he was given ten million dollars by the bank, and having a good laugh about it.
Two other things are interesting. How badly the media have reported it, and, as is only just starting to happen, how Westpac is coming under more scrutiny about it's working conditions than I'm sure it wants to.
First, I heard, a Rotorua businessman had been given a "7 figure" deposit in error. Now 7 figures, if my math is correct, is 9,999,999 or less. The media was reporting at the same time that is was also $10m. Which is, of course, an "8 figure" sum.
Then we heard Gao had taken off with the ten million dollars. Then we heard that it was only six million he'd escaped with, Westpac had recovered four million. Then we heard Gao had applied for a ten thousand dollar overdraft, and we had to assume it had mistakenly been made a ten million dollar overdraft. Which is significantly different to a ten million dollar deposit to his account. Some bozo was saying on the news that there were checks and balances and if a 10m deposit had been made one of the balances would have been out (which is not necessarily true).
In today's SST, it seems confirmed that a 100,000 dollar overdraft limit was mistakenly turned into a 10m dollar one, which is much easier to understand because all that's required there is to drop the decimal point. Now it makes sense. I was trying to figure out in my head how ten thousand had become ten million via only a simple mistake. Harder to turn ten thousand into ten million, than a hundred thousand.
But also reported today is that Westpac is "vigorously pursuing" the outstanding 3.8 million. Huh? Where did that figure come from?
Point is, in the rush to get the story out, the media just grabbed any old numbers that vaguley fit the story, no matter how incorrect they were.
So it seems Westpac is only out 4m, with liens of at least a couple of million over properties in Rotorua and Auckland (if the media can be believed). So the bottom line is Westpac is only out by an amount similar to the CEO's bonus.
Which brings us nicely to Westpac's strong desire, I'm sure, to not get too much egg on it's face. It was only a matter of time before FINSEC made the connection between such a mistake and Wetspac's staff being under too much pressure. This mistake has nothing to do with staff being under too much pressure. It's a simple mistake, the kind made by the banking industry DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of times A DAY. Most of them are picked up by the checks and balance system. But some ALWAYS get missed.
To be fair, even in this financial environment, ten million dollars is not a lot of money, and if it ends up being a million or two, then in banking that is chicken feed. Bad debts of that amount are written off regularly.
Obviously Westpac doesn't want to set a precedent, otherwise the stuff ups they make every day will start costing them. If they make a mistake of only a thousand dollars, and you spend the money, are they going to pursue it? I doubt it. Ten thousand? Maybe. They just want people to think that if they overpay you you HAVE to pay it back. Which technically you do. However, the question is how hard will they pursue you for it.
Mostly, they don't want you to think they are incompetent, which they are not (well, relatively speaking).
But obviously Gao is incompetent. Why not transfer the whole amount to his mother's bank account in China and DISAPPEAR. The sister-in-law (so to speak) is gloating on Facebook? Geez. What a moron. They'll be caught and in a gesture of global good will China will extradite them. Westpac will cut their losses, but send them to jail anyway. It'll be old news by next week, and we'll only hear more about it later when they're caught, then jailed.
If Gao had any brains he would be holed up somewhere in deepest darkest China counting his Yuan.
Friday, May 22, 2009
What up with Idol, Dawg?
What. A. Crock!
If you can't trust reality TV, what can you trust? But it is now evident that American Idol is as manufactured and contrived as . . . as New Zealand's Dancing With the Stars.
I'm incensed.
As much as I love America, the only true Holy Land, I have to take issue with their MORONIC choice for the latest American Idol. Not since y'all shafted that cute little Clay Aiken boy have you engaged in such a monumentally farcical cock-up.
Adam Lambert was so clearly, so undisputably, so unequivocally the far superior showman, artist, and singer that his second placing has to be one of the great injustices of all time. Adam makes songs that SUCK sound good. Face it, some of the song choices were crap. But even the crap songs sounded great after being Adamised. I missed him doing Black and White - caught a snippet of it on the radio - so would love to hear the full version. If we could actually get it on iTunes, I would. When New Zealand catches up with that technology - probably in about 20 years, thanks whoever's responsible for that - I'll grab it.
Talking about black and white. The final song they both sung - No Boundaries? The versions were like black and white, white being pure, pristine, and perfect as performed by Adam, and black being pathetic, pitchy and painful as spewed out by that other guy.
How did he possibly win? How? It is unfathomable. I lost count of how many notes he missed tonight. You could count on ZERO fingers the notes Adam missed. And not only did he not miss any notes, he created some never-before-heard new ones. And Adam's so pretty. How did he not win? It's as ludicrous as Norm Hewitt winning a dancing competition. It's as ridiculous as Paula Abdul lip-syncing a song on stage. God forbid.
I am going to have to seriously reconsider supporting this annual event. I haven't been as disappointed since buying Reuben Studdarts debut (and only?) album. And I haven't been this angry since I missed out on tickets to Paul Pott's concert at the Bromley Working Men's Club.
Go Adam! I still love you. I'm not afraid to admit I think you're HOT! xx
Friday, May 15, 2009
Eyes glazed shut
I am truly a terrible Kiwi. Whenever I hear the words Edmund Hillary my eyes glaze over. Yawn. The Five Dollar Note guy. Fifty years ago he climbed a mountain that lots of people now climb practically recreationally. Big deal. He did some philanthropic work in Nepal. Perhaps he could have done something really dangerous like some philanthropic work in South Auckland. Now that would be daring.
His children are in a very public spat with the Auckland Museum. Apparently Hillary left some papers, photographs, diaries and what have you to the care of the Museum.
Of course, there are a million “provisions”, conditions under which the documents are to be handled. And now an argument has erupted about intellectual property rights and publication rights.
Mostly I’m sure it’s about money. Things like this usually are. Sure it’s about an “iconic” New Zealander and the family’s memories of him. Fair enough, but ultimately it will be about money. Who gets what percentage of the profits from whatever publication takes place.
I can understand both sides, although I think the Museum comes out looking like the bully. How could they possibly take on that family and hope to keep an ounce of sympathy from the New Zealand public? The lawyers will be foaming at the mouth with the prospect of a long, drawn out court battle to decide what most Kiwi’s already know. That the ownership of everything remains with the family.
Some things should not be reported. While I glaze over at the mention of Sir Ed, I don’t think whatever memory we have of him should be so posthumously marred by the greed and ineptitude of either the Auckland Museum, the remaining members of the Hillary family, or both.
And shame on the reporter who broke the story.
His children are in a very public spat with the Auckland Museum. Apparently Hillary left some papers, photographs, diaries and what have you to the care of the Museum.
Of course, there are a million “provisions”, conditions under which the documents are to be handled. And now an argument has erupted about intellectual property rights and publication rights.
Mostly I’m sure it’s about money. Things like this usually are. Sure it’s about an “iconic” New Zealander and the family’s memories of him. Fair enough, but ultimately it will be about money. Who gets what percentage of the profits from whatever publication takes place.
I can understand both sides, although I think the Museum comes out looking like the bully. How could they possibly take on that family and hope to keep an ounce of sympathy from the New Zealand public? The lawyers will be foaming at the mouth with the prospect of a long, drawn out court battle to decide what most Kiwi’s already know. That the ownership of everything remains with the family.
Some things should not be reported. While I glaze over at the mention of Sir Ed, I don’t think whatever memory we have of him should be so posthumously marred by the greed and ineptitude of either the Auckland Museum, the remaining members of the Hillary family, or both.
And shame on the reporter who broke the story.
Monday, May 11, 2009
A guy thing?
I'm definitely not one for pain. I try to avoid it at all costs. I've had a gammy wisdom tooth for ages, and while it hasn't yet been much problem, I know it's going to be an issue in the (near?) future. And part of the tension for me is the knowing that at some point in the future I'm in for some considerable pain and discomfort.
So, I can't think of anything worse than knowing that at some specific point in the future I will have to endure an excruciating series of painful procedures. Imagine you're told that on September the 12th you're going to have each of your fingernails pulled slowly out while hot needles are inserted into the fleshy wound left by the extraction. And then just to make it really uncomfortable you're going to have your nuts squeezed in a vice to just-before-eruption-point.
How hard would the waiting be? The anticipation? The wondering? How could you concentrate? Do your daily thing? Read? Enjoy anything? I would spend the whole time a jibbering mess counting down the seconds to pain zero.
A girl at work is pregnant. My son's friend's partner has just given birth to a baby girl. A writer friend is due in June.
To be told that in seven or so months you're going to have to squeeze a large grapefruit sized object through a hole in your pelvis not usually bigger than a ping pong ball . . . well, you get the point.
Big ups to you, ladies.
So, I can't think of anything worse than knowing that at some specific point in the future I will have to endure an excruciating series of painful procedures. Imagine you're told that on September the 12th you're going to have each of your fingernails pulled slowly out while hot needles are inserted into the fleshy wound left by the extraction. And then just to make it really uncomfortable you're going to have your nuts squeezed in a vice to just-before-eruption-point.
How hard would the waiting be? The anticipation? The wondering? How could you concentrate? Do your daily thing? Read? Enjoy anything? I would spend the whole time a jibbering mess counting down the seconds to pain zero.
A girl at work is pregnant. My son's friend's partner has just given birth to a baby girl. A writer friend is due in June.
To be told that in seven or so months you're going to have to squeeze a large grapefruit sized object through a hole in your pelvis not usually bigger than a ping pong ball . . . well, you get the point.
Big ups to you, ladies.
Arm them, now!
In the wake of the Napier siege, Prime Minister John Key has said he doesn’t think the police should be armed. He says that the police have an approachable culture and he wouldn’t want to see that change. He also says that if they were armed, they would have to consider the possibility that anybody approaching them will potentially take that gun off them and use it against them
First of all, I think it is a disadvantage that there is an approachable culture in the police. This is the result of years of PC denuding of the authority once entrenched in the police ideal.
We need police who are the ultimate figures of authority. While there is room for the abuse of that position, if we were serious about having an effective police force, those issues can be addressed in training, and in effective independent oversight.
Within a certain element, the police are a joke. Particularly in the criminal fraternity, boy racers, gangs. Not because they are unarmed, necessarily, which is the current argument. But they are a joke, to some, because they no longer command respect.
Closely following on from that, it is only common sense that in some situations, police officers need to be more careful. If they are going to perform a “routine” drug bust, I would have thought that in today’s environment, it would be a no brainer that they go fully armed.
It is emerging that “everyone” knew this Molenaar guy was a loose cannon (literally) with a penchant for guns, explosives, and violence.
HULLO!!
Is there a gaping hole in the intelligence the police were working with? Or were they simply complacent/ignorant?
There cannot be a police force that is both “authoritative” and “approachable”. Personally, I vote for the former.
First of all, I think it is a disadvantage that there is an approachable culture in the police. This is the result of years of PC denuding of the authority once entrenched in the police ideal.
We need police who are the ultimate figures of authority. While there is room for the abuse of that position, if we were serious about having an effective police force, those issues can be addressed in training, and in effective independent oversight.
Within a certain element, the police are a joke. Particularly in the criminal fraternity, boy racers, gangs. Not because they are unarmed, necessarily, which is the current argument. But they are a joke, to some, because they no longer command respect.
Closely following on from that, it is only common sense that in some situations, police officers need to be more careful. If they are going to perform a “routine” drug bust, I would have thought that in today’s environment, it would be a no brainer that they go fully armed.
It is emerging that “everyone” knew this Molenaar guy was a loose cannon (literally) with a penchant for guns, explosives, and violence.
HULLO!!
Is there a gaping hole in the intelligence the police were working with? Or were they simply complacent/ignorant?
There cannot be a police force that is both “authoritative” and “approachable”. Personally, I vote for the former.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
