caffiene makes you sweat...?

I don't like power point presentations in which random words are high lighted. No real pattern or reason to them, makes me semi worried.

I had a lecturer like that last year. His notes had little icons next to the "important" sections. Every section had one. The the REALLY important stuff was underlined too. Most stuff was underlined. Then the super important stuff was in bold, underlined and with a little icon...

His lecture powerpoints had almost exclusivley one word points, some of which were bold/underlined at random. There were also low-resolution pictures without descriptions of what stuff was (without going into detail, it was a course with lots of describey-stuff that images were useful for).

Then he asked exam questions about stuff that wasn't in his notes or lectures

I don't like power point presentations that are just a written down version of what the speaker is saying. How am I supposed to concentrate on two things at once? How is anyone? It's dangerous. And stupid.

Kevin Hague wrote:I don't like power point presentations that are just a written down version of what the speaker is saying. How am I supposed to concentrate on two things at once? How is anyone? It's dangerous. And stupid.

You should have mentioned you were a Green MP, I'm sure the guy would have obliged by speaking more slowly.

So whats the green party position on the acquisition of minerals? Generally they come from the ground, and mining is how its done.
Or is OK if they come from ruined overseas vistas, just not here.

nostromo wrote:So whats the green party position on the acquisition of minerals? Generally they come from the ground, and mining is how its done.
Or is OK if they come from ruined overseas vistas, just not here.

I didn't realise New Zealand was so drastically short of minerals that we all of a sudden needed to mine our most precious conservation land.

There's minerals under the ground all over the damn place, usually there's heaps available in areas where they can be accessed with no great harm to the environment. New Zealand's national parks on the other hand are irreplaceable and vitally important to us for tourism and for our native species. Once we dig giant holes in the ground in the middle of them THEY ARE GONE FOREVER. 7,000ha is a bitchtonne of land that will be permanently scarred by these mines... It's not like when they dig a mine over farm land, and then when they're done they repair the land even better than when they found it... Them fuckers can't build no native forrests, so once they start there's no going back.

Fucking National. I don't remember them saying anything about mining national parks during the election campaign... Funny. I'd have thought that would be the sort of thing they might have mentionned if they were honest and weren't just in it to make a quick buck for their mates.

At least leave the coal reserves alone until it becomes profitable to turn it into petrol... then sell it to the arabs (america will be broke by then).

happybaboon wrote:There's minerals under the ground all over the damn place, usually there's heaps available in areas where they can be accessed with no great harm to the environment. New Zealand's national parks on the other hand are irreplaceable and vitally important to us for tourism and for our native species. Once we dig giant holes in the ground in the middle of them THEY ARE GONE FOREVER. 7,000ha is a bitchtonne of land that will be permanently scarred by these mines... It's not like when they dig a mine over farm land, and then when they're done they repair the land even better than when they found it... Them fuckers can't build no native forrests, so once they start there's no going back.

no one has bitten yet. your bait is stale.

happybaboon wrote:

nostromo wrote:So whats the green party position on the acquisition of minerals? Generally they come from the ground, and mining is how its done.
Or is OK if they come from ruined overseas vistas, just not here.

I didn't realise New Zealand was so drastically short of minerals that we all of a sudden needed to mine our most precious conservation land.

There's minerals under the ground all over the damn place, usually there's heaps available in areas where they can be accessed with no great harm to the environment. New Zealand's national parks on the other hand are irreplaceable and vitally important to us for tourism and for our native species. Once we dig giant holes in the ground in the middle of them THEY ARE GONE FOREVER. 7,000ha is a bitchtonne of land that will be permanently scarred by these mines... It's not like when they dig a mine over farm land, and then when they're done they repair the land even better than when they found it... Them fuckers can't build no native forrests, so once they start there's no going back.

Fucking National. I don't remember them saying anything about mining national parks during the election campaign... Funny. I'd have thought that would be the sort of thing they might have mentionned if they were honest and weren't just in it to make a quick buck for their mates.

Fuckin' A! VIVA LE REVOLUTION!!!

happybaboon wrote:

nostromo wrote:So whats the green party position on the acquisition of minerals? Generally they come from the ground, and mining is how its done.
Or is OK if they come from ruined overseas vistas, just not here.

I didn't realise New Zealand was so drastically short of minerals that we all of a sudden needed to mine our most precious conservation land.

There's minerals under the ground all over the damn place, usually there's heaps available in areas where they can be accessed with no great harm to the environment. New Zealand's national parks on the other hand are irreplaceable and vitally important to us for tourism and for our native species. Once we dig giant holes in the ground in the middle of them THEY ARE GONE FOREVER. 7,000ha is a bitchtonne of land that will be permanently scarred by these mines... It's not like when they dig a mine over farm land, and then when they're done they repair the land even better than when they found it... Them fuckers can't build no native forrests, so once they start there's no going back.

Fucking National. I don't remember them saying anything about mining national parks during the election campaign... Funny. I'd have thought that would be the sort of thing they might have mentionned if they were honest and weren't just in it to make a quick buck for their mates.

Chur... who'd have thunk politicians were full of shit aye?

No beer

nostromo wrote:So whats the green party position on the acquisition of minerals? Generally they come from the ground, and mining is how its done.
Or is OK if they come from ruined overseas vistas, just not here.

In the big picture we want to shift our economy so that it has a sustainable relationship with the natural environment, so we don't use resources faster than they can be replenished, or put waste in it faster than it can recover. The use of finite resources, such as the minerals that we mine, is inherently (contrary to John Key's inexplicable claim) unsustainable. There's no more of them being made (or at least not at a rate to equal our rate of use). Therefore our obligation to future generations, who may also need these minerals, (and indeed may have a more important use for them than us) is to mine and use only the minimum quantities necessary. To do this we need to prioritise our use (only use it for the most important things), try to develop alternatives, and commit to 'upcycling' (=keeping these materials in the technosphere, rather than trashing them after a single use). For example, if we are going to justify our mining initiatives on the basis of their need for technological use (as Gerry Brownlee does) then we can stop Gold mining now. We already have more in storage than we could possibly need for techy stuff for at least many generations.

When we have minimised how much we need of a material, then we need to take it from places and using methods that minimise environmental damage.

This approach is very different from the approach of our current Government. They view the natural environment not as something with inherent value, but as a set of resources that should be exploited for maximum short-term financial gain. For example, today they admitted they hadn't even asked for any advice on the expected impact of their proposed mininga ctivities on tourism, let alone our international trading brand.

Let's remember too that, although Government is trying to dudge this issue, this is not about any mining on conservation land. What had happened through the 1970s and 80s was that there had been considerable conflict between conservationists and miners whenever new mining activity was proposed for an area on conservation land. The deal that was struck between those two groups and the Government to radically reduce conflict and enable people to get on with their lives and legitimate activities, was that mining would be permissible on most conservation land, subject to the same law applicable on non-conservation land, but that in return all parties agreed that no mining would be permitted on the conservation land with the highest conservation values, and this land was specified in Schedule 4 of the Act. It is National's intent to go back on this pact that is at the heart of the current issue.

Kevin Hague wrote:

nostromo wrote:So whats the green party position on the acquisition of minerals? Generally they come from the ground, and mining is how its done.
Or is OK if they come from ruined overseas vistas, just not here.

In the big picture we want to shift our economy so that it has a sustainable relationship with the natural environment, so we don't use resources faster than they can be replenished, or put waste in it faster than it can recover. The use of finite resources, such as the minerals that we mine, is inherently (contrary to John Key's inexplicable claim) unsustainable. There's no more of them being made (or at least not at a rate to equal our rate of use). Therefore our obligation to future generations, who may also need these minerals, (and indeed may have a more important use for them than us) is to mine and use only the minimum quantities necessary. To do this we need to prioritise our use (only use it for the most important things), try to develop alternatives, and commit to 'upcycling' (=keeping these materials in the technosphere, rather than trashing them after a single use). For example, if we are going to justify our mining initiatives on the basis of their need for technological use (as Gerry Brownlee does) then we can stop Gold mining now. We already have more in storage than we could possibly need for techy stuff for at least many generations.

When we have minimised how much we need of a material, then we need to take it from places and using methods that minimise environmental damage.

This approach is very different from the approach of our current Government. They view the natural environment not as something with inherent value, but as a set of resources that should be exploited for maximum short-term financial gain. For example, today they admitted they hadn't even asked for any advice on the expected impact of their proposed mininga ctivities on tourism, let alone our international trading brand.

Let's remember too that, although Government is trying to dudge this issue, this is not about any mining on conservation land. What had happened through the 1970s and 80s was that there had been considerable conflict between conservationists and miners whenever new mining activity was proposed for an area on conservation land. The deal that was struck between those two groups and the Government to radically reduce conflict and enable people to get on with their lives and legitimate activities, was that mining would be permissible on most conservation land, subject to the same law applicable on non-conservation land, but that in return all parties agreed that no mining would be permitted on the conservation land with the highest conservation values, and this land was specified in Schedule 4 of the Act. It is National's intent to go back on this pact that is at the heart of the current issue.

Whats a dudge?

Nicely put, Kevin.