Open Forum – Friday

16 June 2017

Facebook: NZ politics/media+

This post is open to anyone to comment on any topic that isn’t spam, illegal or offensive. All Your NZ posts are open but this one is for you to raise topics that interest you. 

If providing opinions on or summaries of other information also provide a link to that information. Bloggers are welcome to summarise and link to their posts.

Comments worth more exposure may be repeated as posts.

Your NZ is a mostly political and social issues blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome. Some ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.

87 Comments

  1. lurcher1948

     /  June 16, 2017

    4 workplace deaths within 2 week, we truly are a 3rd world low paid sweatshop economy under billy and national…

    • Oliver

       /  June 16, 2017

      Vote Labour they’re big on workers rights.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  June 16, 2017

        There will never be no workplace deaths as long as there is human error. it is nonsense to say that we are a 3rd world sweatshop economy-it’s so obvious that we are not that I won’t bother to go into why this is a ridiculous thing to say.

      • PDB

         /  June 16, 2017

        Oliver: “Vote Labour they’re big on workers rights.”

        So big in fact they want to ignore health and safety laws and re-enter a mine deemed unsafe for people to enter.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  June 16, 2017

      The average is one a week. Hasn’t changed since 2011 at least but haven’t seen stats since before that. Comparison of an agricultural and fishing economy with urban nations is not valid.

  2. Oliver

     /  June 16, 2017

    Is anyone else baffled by the fact that the apartment building in London burned for 24 hours but then didn’t collapse. The twin towers on 9/11 burnt for an hour and then collapsed at free fall speed. Tower seven burned on a couple of floors for a few hours and then collapse in its own foot print. Either Londoners are really good at designing buildings or something else is going on.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  June 16, 2017

      Depends on the fire and structural design and whether the fire location and intensity compromises it. And when one floor goes the building pancakes as the falling weight dominoes down till it hits the ground and that impact collapses anything still intact during the fall, this time from the bottom up. Buildings are not designed to have half a building fall on them nor to hit the ground at free fall speed.

      • PDB

         /  June 16, 2017

        As I don’t want to go into detail again from yesterday this will be my only comment on the subject.

        Alan: “And when one floor goes the building pancakes as the falling weight dominoes down till it hits the ground”

        One plane hits one of the twin towers (that have been specifically designed to take a hit from a commercial aircraft) between the 75-85th floors and an hour later the fire damaged portion of the 110 storey building collapses the whole building including the remaining 75 undamaged stories at free-fall speed? Fairytale stuff that doesn’t pass any scientific sniff test.

        Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  June 16, 2017

          Dunno what you are smoking, PDB, nor see how you read my comment or why you think the weight of 25 floors falling 3m and hitting the floor below at 30km/hr will not instantly collapse it. Conservation of momentum says that the velocity will be slowed only by 1/25th before it accelerates again and at the next floor going much faster is only slowed by 1/26th, etc.

          • PDB

             /  June 16, 2017

            Make that 2 posts just for your benefit……

            “Apart from the fact that no steel-framed high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire prior to or since Sept. 11, the manner in which the buildings came down is itself a substantial cause for re-investigation. A collapse due to fire would likely proceed gradually with large deformations visible in the building’s perimeter, with the building tipping over slowly in the direction of the steadily weakening structural members – to the path of least resistance.

            Yet the Twin Towers both came down quite suddenly, without warning, and without any “jolts” that would indicate the upper mass impacting the lower mass. The smooth rate of descent was measured at 2/3 of free-fall. In other words, the building was accelerating (traveling faster and faster second by second) straight down through what should have been the path of greatest resistance – the 80,000 tons of structural steel below that was at least five times stronger than necessary to resist this load. Physicists and other experts agree that this could have happened only if the underlying supporting structures were removed ahead of the falling upper building mass. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) acknowledges that each building was destroyed in fewer than a dozen seconds, and that they “came down essentially in free-fall”.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  June 16, 2017

              2/3 of free fall sounds just what would be expected given the conservation of momentum I mentioned moderated by the successive destructive energies and a compensatory collapsing of the falling component of the structure.

              The strength required to resist a stationary load is much less than that required to resist a high speed impact of that load. The very stiffness of that supporting structure greatly increases the instantaneous impact forces.

            • PDB

               /  June 16, 2017

              I’m glad you’re so certain Alan – even NIST in their official report on the twin towers collapse could offer no explanation as to why the lower sections failed to arrest or even slow the descent of the upper sections – so they just left that bit out.

              NIST: “The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower….this sequence is referred to as the ‘probable collapse sequence,’ although it includes little analysis of the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”

              “the computer models [were] not able to converge on a solution”.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  June 16, 2017

              Of course they slowed it, otherwise it would have been at free fall speed. But as I demonstrated above by the time it got to the last floor the slowing would only have been by less than one percent of its downward velocity – imperceptible.

    • Oliver

       /  June 16, 2017

      Interesting true fact. Only three buildings have ever collapsed into their own foot print due to fire, or a plane hitting the building. Those buildings were the twin towers and tower 7. Coincidence?

      • Gezza

         /  June 16, 2017

        Nope, physics. And look more closely at the rubble from overhead. They didn’t exactly collapse into their own footprint.

        • Gezza

           /  June 16, 2017

          🌸

          • High Flying Duck

             /  June 16, 2017

            I was going to say thanks for the warning – I should have listened.

            However I appreciate your attempt and shall put more credence on your words from here on in!

            Unless i disagree with you of course 🙂

            • Gezza

               /  June 16, 2017

              👍 Goes without saying, HFD. 💪 😀

        • High Flying Duck

           /  June 16, 2017

          Stop it Gezza – you’re ruining everything!

          You probably also missed the plane flying into the building in London and the jet fuel shooting through the elevator shafts?

          They are exactly comparable and yet the building in London is now incredibly unsafe but still standing

          Here is the difference:

          Regards the steel giving way:

          “It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

          Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

          It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

          The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.”

          And regards the pancaking:

          “Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

          The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

          As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.”

          http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

          • PDB

             /  June 16, 2017

            Hilarious!

            • High Flying Duck

               /  June 16, 2017

              It’s funny because it’s true…

            • Gezza

               /  June 16, 2017

              I’ll say! Keep looking PDB.

            • Gezza

               /  June 16, 2017

              If he keeps looking he’ll get there in the end & be able to relax.

            • PDB

               /  June 16, 2017

              Your whole argument is nonsense, especially considering all this jet fuel rubbish isn’t applicable to Building 7 that wasn’t even hit by a plane and was a totally different structure from the twin towers yet fell exactly the same way at close to free fall speed. The chances of that occurring? Close to zero.

              HFD: “To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.”

              If that was ‘normal’ why has it only occurred on three steel framed high rise buildings in history that have been on fire – all of which occurred the same day in 2001?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  June 16, 2017

              It fell straight down because it concertinaed rather than fell over. It concertinaed because a whole floor collapsed first rather than one side being taken out by explosives.

            • Gezza

               /  June 16, 2017

              I went down this track with a few of them a few years back Al. They’ll be wasting your time & energy for weeks. Leave them to it. It’s like trying to tell the Pope his God’s not real.

            • PDB

               /  June 16, 2017

            • High Flying Duck

               /  June 16, 2017

              PDB I read your article…although being printed in the Guardian was more than enough proof it was agenda driven and unreliable.
              try this one for a rebuttal:

              http://blog.daimonie.com/2016/09/europhysics-truther-rebuke.html?m=1

              Only ever happened 3 times?..

              “The results of the world-wide survey indicated that a total of 22 fire-induced collapses were identified spanning from 1970 to the present. The 2001 World Trade Center (WTC) collapses accounted for four of these events. Seven major multi-story fire events were also identified as having significant structural damage due to a fire, but did not exhibit collapse. (NIST)”

            • PDB

               /  June 16, 2017

              Name them………

            • PDB

               /  June 16, 2017

              Here I’ll save you the time: https://www.jensenhughes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/White_Paper_Historical_Survey_Building_Collapse_NIST_JBeitel-NIwankiw_OCT-2006.pdf

              Note the lie you have linked to:

              In summary, a total of 22 cases from 1970-2002 are presented in Table 1, with 15 from the US and two from Canada. The number of fire-induced collapse events can be categorized by building construction material as follows:

              • Concrete: 7 • Structural steel: 6 • Brick/masonry: 5 • Unknown: 2 • Wood: 2

              So only 6 structural steel, how did the other ‘non 911 buildings’ go?

              *Connection bolts sheared during fire, causing several steel filler beams on the 33-34th floors to fall and rest on the bottom flanges of their supporting girders.
              *Started Saturday and burned for a total of 18 hours, causing significant structural damage to 9 floors.
              *Fire burnout of 8th to10th floors
              *Lasted for about 3.5 hours, causing major damage to four floors

              Total collapse – no where near it.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  June 16, 2017

              You need to read the article…but to help you along:

              Rebutting your Guardian article:

              “The authors continue to explain why steel-framed high-rises have endured large fires. While interesting, they continue by re-stating that countless other steel-framed high-rises have not suffered total collapse due to fires, citing the above source. As you see, the source does not seem to back this up. The applied trick seems to be in the wording, as the above quote is about collapsing multi-story buildings, but the authors are only speaking of “steel-framed high-rise” buildings. Steel-framed seems to indicate a building technique (for e.g. skyscrapers) and high-rise is a tall building used as residential or office building.

              However, this is not very strong. The reason being that the number of buildings that fit their criteria are about 30 in 1970, 60 in 1980 and about 280 in 2001. As they have just explained, fires typically are not hot enough or last long enough to heat structural members, fire-suppression systems are present, they have fireproofing materials and they are designed to be redundant. So, about 260 buildings existed for some time before 2001; the problem is data bias. You are selecting buildings that are both well-protected and rare. Of course you did not find collapses in this very small selection.”

            • PDB

               /  June 16, 2017

              This is getting tiresome yet once more I’ll take the bait……..

              “You are selecting buildings that are both well-protected and rare. Of course you did not find collapses in this very small selection”

              So ‘well protected’ & ‘rare’ that three of them completely fell down on the same day due to fire – your point actually supports the notion that statistically the chances of the 3 buildings totally collapsing on 911 are close to zero.

              Enough………

            • High Flying Duck

               /  June 16, 2017

              Deflection is common among conspiracists.

              Read the article – which completely destroys that Guardian article or keep living in your Illuminatti dreamland. I really don’t care.

            • PDB

               /  June 16, 2017

              From your article: “The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed because, turns out, fire is hot”

              With such indepth analysis, inhuman-like perception and hard evidence as that the science is definitely ‘settled’ – well done!

            • High Flying Duck

               /  June 16, 2017

              So you ignored the in-depth analysis and read the pithy little summary at then end to decide there was no indepth analysis.

              deflection once more…

              Based on that I eagerly await your prognostications on the moon landings, Roswell and the next Nicky Hager book!

            • Gezza

               /  June 16, 2017

              @ HFD
              You can’t say you weren’t warned:
              https://yournz.org/2017/06/16/open-forum-friday-133/#comment-193913

            • PDB

               /  June 16, 2017

              The problem with your suggestion Gezza is that the debate isn’t just with the so called ‘conspiracists’, it’s also with the 1000’s of expert engineers, physicists, aviation specialists, scientists and the like that have gone on record to dispute the official govt explanation. Their opinions are not so easy to dismiss.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  June 16, 2017

              There’s a subtle difference between experts debating an analysis of building failure processes and those who believe the Govt killed 2000 of its citizens by flying planes into and blowing up buildings in order to start a war.

            • PDB

               /  June 16, 2017

              I actually agree with you Alan……….the debate of whether the officlal record of events/the science is correct and whether the govt knowingly murdered its own citizens are quite different beasts.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  June 16, 2017

            I should have posted this ealrier, but a great Skeptic rebuttal to the conspiricists:

            http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/

            And as to the “1000’s of engineers”, this is a pretty good answer:

            “First and foremost, an overwhelming majority of structural engineers agree that the tragedies of September 11 were the result of a terrorist attack that caused catastrophic damage to WTC 1 and 2. The following is a succinct version of the accepted explanation:

            The impact of the airliners and the initial explosion caused localized damage and collapse of the steel structure over multiple floors. The initial impact significantly reduced the capacity of the structure to withstand any additional damage. Ensuing fires caused by the ignition of jet fuel and surrounding office contents burned long enough (about an hour) to weaken the load carrying capacity of the remaining steel frames. The columns were supporting floors above (12 floors in the case of WTC1 – which my rough estimate puts at about 48 Million pounds of weight). Contrary to myth, steel members subjected to fire do not have to approach a melting point to lose their design capacity. When considering that the remaining steel framing was already being forced to carry loads above design capacity (on account of members damaged during impact), it is reasonable to assume that induced thermal stresses lead to their failure. Upon failure, the previously estimated 48 million pound load accelerated downward, resulting in progressive collapse of the structure. Upon collapse of WTC 1 and 2, the corresponding debris field resulted in further damage, fires, and in some cases collapse of surrounding structures.

            As with most issues, you can find people that are willing to take any side of the argument. Structural Engineering is a broad field practiced by many people. In general, most engineers do not ever touch a building 1/10th the size of WTC 1 and 2 (or WTC 4, 5, 7, etc.). Design firms specialize in high-rise construction work and these firms are often lead by experts and innovators within the field.

            The FEMA report cited was not written by government employees as insinuated by most of its detractors. It was written by a who’s-who of practicing engineers responsible for designing the most advanced (and tallest) structures in the world. These people staked their (valuable) professional reputations on the conclusions in this report as a public service – nothing more. To put it simply, they are not just structural engineers; they are the leaders of structural engineers.

            Report: http://www.fema.gov/media-librar

            I am not advocating that we follow them blindly on title alone. Skepticism is always healthy up to a certain point. In this case however, I would say that their credibility as knowledgeable engineers is unparalleled. Moreover, the collapse mechanisms presented in the report are logical and plausible with a basic understanding of material properties, steel framed construction, and the structural system of WTC 1 and 2. It is with good reason that the collapse mechanisms originally postulated are not widely debated among professionals that work in this field.”

            • PDB

               /  June 16, 2017

              As you’ve proven – Confirmation bias can be a never-ending loop……my experts are better than your experts, repeat….

            • High Flying Duck

               /  June 16, 2017

              There is confirmation bias and then there is wilful blindness.

              There are always fringers wanting to see conspiracy, and thankfully for them life is messy enough to be able to pull at strands and come up with such theories.

              The fact is there are clear plausible explanations for everything that happened.

              You can believe an alternative if you like, but to do so you are having to make very large leaps and add layers of complexity to do so.

              You have ‘experts’, but as the post above shows the top experts in their field were convinced as to the reason for the collapses. 9/11 resulted in significant changes to how skyscrapers are built to mitigate these reasons.

              I saw you said it’s not about conspiracy – but if it’s not then what is it about? Things just happening differently?

            • Gezza

               /  June 16, 2017

              The problem with your suggestion Gezza is that the debate isn’t just with the so called ‘conspiracists’, it’s also with the 1000’s of expert engineers, physicists, aviation specialists, scientists and the like that have gone on record to dispute the official govt explanation. Their opinions are not so easy to dismiss.

              The problem with that comment, PDB, is that it seems you think I don’t know that. I spent months on the net looking into it. Enough to know that there is nothing to seriously suggest there was anything other natural forces involved in the collapse of those buildings. Check out a few of those ‘scientists’ and ‘engineers’ and ‘aviation specialists’. Then check out the thousands who don’t share their concerns.

              Then find the other engineering & physics papers done on these buildings that prove the collapses are totally explicable by ordinary physics & the known facts.

              They’re there. Because of the popularity of the main 911 conspiracy & conspiracy debunking sites, they took a long while to find. But they’re there. I never waste any more time on it.

            • PDB

               /  June 16, 2017

              HFD: “I saw you said it’s not about conspiracy – but if it’s not then what is it about? Things just happening differently?”

              I think its a case of being happy that the official version of event is correct and go from there. Many families affected by the events of that day want just that.

              With nothing to hide the govt should release all footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon (not the inconclusive one they did release), all footage of the hijackers boarding planes (the only one released has no time stamp so is next to useless), black box & plane recordings, computer simulation data/projections etc for their sake at least. To not do so is to only attract crazier and crazier conspiracy theories.

              On top of that we do know the govt protected their own after 911, especially those who wrongly said air quality was safe in post-911 NYC and the govt officials who failed to respond as trained whilst the attacks were unfolding – especially the Pentagon attack which should never have happened. An independent investigation into such matters should also be carried out and people held accountable if found to have done wrong.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  June 16, 2017

              The Government would have to be very careful releasing footage showing how a terrorist attack was carried out.
              All Governments lie. They also make mistakes which can be construed as lies.
              We don’t know know if there IS any missing footage of the Pentagon crash. There were rumours of confiscated footage from a hotel never confirmed.
              Gezz summarised matters better than I so I will leave it here. It’s been fun butting heads with you though.

      • Oliver

         /  June 16, 2017

        The official report from NIST said that all buildings collapsed due to fire damage and not because of damage from the aircraft. Their conclusion not mine. Apparently the fire weakened the steel pillars in all three buildings. A big coincidence if you ask me. The jet fuel burned instantly on impact, hence the fire ball. Aviation is very volatile and burns instantly. It defies everything we know about physics.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  June 16, 2017

          As you are an expert in so many fields, I would have expected you to know all about what happened here.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  June 16, 2017

          I posted on the fire above…spoiler alert – the fuel burnt for quite some time.

        • Bullshit. Jet fuel is essentially kerosene. It’s slow burning as fuck. It’s made that way. If you have a butt ton of it in one place, it will burn intensely and forever.

          The WTC building design was unique. The steel was centred around the core. Other designs with more spread out load bearers would probably still stay up.

  3. Gezza

     /  June 16, 2017

    I don’t think I’ve been getting as many upticks today as I really deserve. And some of the downticks are, quite frankly, disgraceful. So, I might be complaining to the Human Rights Commission if this situation doesn’t improve.

  4. Zedd

     /  June 16, 2017

    beware emails claiming to be from ‘your bank’ (even if you dont have an account) saying you need to ‘click the link’ to ensure your account is still active.. OR not locked

    Ive a had a few lately & i just delete them

    • High Flying Duck

       /  June 16, 2017

      There’s also an IRD scam going around. IRD generally will never email people so if you get an IRD email letting you know about your refund – delete it!

    • PDB

       /  June 16, 2017

      Had one the other day from xtra.co.nz the other day even though I’m not with xtra……….

    • Gezza

       /  June 16, 2017

      Had one the other day claiming to be from my brother. I just replied saying whoever it was they’re an arsehole. Got an angry text back so that one was genuine, luckily. 😐

    • Gezza

       /  June 16, 2017

      A friend rang me late one night to check whether there had been an upgrade replacement Windows 10. She’d had a pop-up box appear on her screen saying it was urgently needed & to click on the box & call the number shown to organise it, which she’d done. Should she have done this.
      Me: Um, no – why didn’t you call me before you did it? Is there is anything different in or on your computer?
      LF: Yes, there’s a new icon for (something or other spyware-checker program).
      ME: Ok, there hasnt been an upgrade replacement Windows 10.
      LF: What shall I do?
      ME: As little as possible, I’d recommend. Keep the number. Take your computer into the nearest computer specialist or get one to call in & do a complete scan for malware & anything unusual, and a clean. Which she did.

      That was a new one for me. I only get phone calls from The “Windows Security Service” telling me they can see there’s a problem with my Windows computer while I’m on the IPad.

  5. Gezza

     /  June 16, 2017

    Righto. I’ve signed up for fibre wiv Spark. The line’s already to the lawn & cost me nothing under National, but connection wasn’t & I was happy enough with wire. A subsidy’s now apparently for fibre installation costs. Connection will cost me nothing & I get the same package for same cost as wire but a faster connection.

    • Gezza

       /  June 16, 2017

      🌸

    • patupaiarehe

       /  June 16, 2017

      What’s the cost G? Per month, that is.

      • Gezza

         /  June 16, 2017

        $ 85 with the landline.

        • patupaiarehe

           /  June 16, 2017

          No data limit? Good deal, if it’s uncapped. Pay about the same myself, for unlimited fibre, and a landline. Not that we use the landline much, but it’s a must when you have young children.

          • Gezza

             /  June 16, 2017

            I think its unlimited, I’ll double check. It’s not getting hooked up until 6 July.
            I only keep the landline on for ma. She’s got a 3G mobile like me but only uses it rarely as a travelling phone, & although I’ve taught her to text she forgets the procedure becoz of that. She’s 90. She & her mates still landline. Not interested in *learning computers*.

            • patupaiarehe

               /  June 16, 2017

              Old habits die hard G. People are comfortable with what is familiar. And why would she bother learning computers? It’s not like she needs them for work, & if she wants to chat with her friends, she just calls them on the phone…

    • High Flying Duck

       /  June 16, 2017

      Good on ya G.
      Those snappy retorts will be lightning now…
      Our house went fibre just over a year ago and the data use has increased exponentially since.
      We don’t watch terrestrial TV anymore – if it isn’t streamed we don’t watch.
      Fibre really makes a difference.
      I think the Government really got the UFB rollout right, despite the many critics at the time.

      • patupaiarehe

         /  June 16, 2017

        Fibre is brilliant. A couple of months back, my eldest (who is the IT expert in our whare), had five of his mates over, for a COD ‘marathon’. Half a dozen teenagers, all playing on the same team, for over 8 hours. Six computers set up on the dining table, multiboxes & modem cables from arsehole to breakfast. My ataahua wahine & I retired to our room, & watched a movie on Netflix, which didn’t lag once. She’d fallen asleep by the end of it, so I went out to check on the boys, who were still ‘battling’. Just out of interest, I logged into my internet account, which tracks data usage on an hourly basis. The boys were quite impressed, when I told them that they had gobbled up 5.7Gb, in the previous hour… 😀

        • Gezza

           /  June 16, 2017

          I’ll be interested to see if the wifi stops working like it did just now & always does when I run the microwave.

          • patupaiarehe

             /  June 16, 2017

            I suspect that it might have something to do with the pyramids G

            • Gezza

               /  June 16, 2017

              I see c snuck in earlier. Bet he’s checking out how much improvement there’s been from the competition now PDB’s started working on raising his evilness performance.

            • patupaiarehe

               /  June 16, 2017

              Can’t say that I see evil in either of them G. Pants, however, has shown that he is equally as crazy as I am. Which is great. It’s nice to know, that I’m not alone…

            • Gezza

               /  June 16, 2017

              (The Evil Ones are always cunning patu.
              That’s why they’re called cunning devils.)

            • patupaiarehe

               /  June 17, 2017

              Cunning stunts… 😉
              Getting a tad frustrated here G. Whatever happened to the ‘Stones B sides’, that you used to post here? I really enjoy hearing old music that I havnt heard before. Makes me feel a little younger than I am…
              Here’s a new take, on an old one that we both know…

            • Gezza

               /  June 17, 2017

              Another night maybe. We both need to kip down matey. Night Patu.

            • patupaiarehe

               /  June 17, 2017

              Yup, ka kite, e hoa…

        • Conspiratoor

           /  June 16, 2017

          Pat, herewithin you have stumbled upon the key difference between copper and light. Electrons within a copper cable must proceed in single file even with the most advanced algorithms whereas electrons within a light beam march shoulder to shoulder unconstrained by a single pipe. Simply translated fibre doesn’t care how many end user devices hang off it while a dsl copper connection will choke

          • patupaiarehe

             /  June 16, 2017

            I’ll take your word for it C, as far as technology goes, I’m a semi-competent ‘end user’. Don’t tell anyone, but I have a child slave here, who deals with any IT issues. He’s really clever, and has a far greater understanding of software, hardware, coding, or pretty much anything to do with computers, than his so called ‘Master’.

  6. PDB

     /  June 16, 2017

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/93786571/russias-military-says-they-may-have-killed-isis-leader-baghdadi–reports

    “Russia claims it has killed the leader of the Islamic State group in an airstrike targeting a meeting of IS leaders just outside the group’s de facto capital in Syria.

    The Russian Defence Ministry said Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in a Russian strike in late May along with other senior group commanders.

    There had been previous reports of al-Baghdadi being killed but they did not turn out to be true. The IS leader last released audio on November 3, urging his followers to keep up the fight for Mosul as they defend the city against a major offensive that began weeks earlier.

    The spokesman for the US-led anti-IS coalition on Friday said in a statement he could not confirm the Russian claim.”

    • Gezza

       /  June 16, 2017

      Interesting. He’s kept such a low profile this will be easily denied unless they can produce a body. He’s a figurehead only anyway, not involved in directing ISIS fighters, so if its true they’ve killed him, reports of his death will spur them on rather demoralize them.

  7. PDB

     /  June 16, 2017

    Founding member of the Pretenders James Honeyman-Scott died this day in 1982 of heart failure caused by cocaine intolerance. Blast from the past……..

    • patupaiarehe

       /  June 16, 2017

      Splendid Pants, ‘Back on the chain gang’, is one of my all time favs. Know all the words to this one as well, and love singing them at work, especially in front of the boy. After my last ‘performance’, he said, “Fuck Patu!, you’ve got issues!”. I replied, “More issues than the Sunday Herald, Jr!”… 😀

  8. patupaiarehe

     /  June 16, 2017

    Having heard this track on the ‘wireless’ recently, it immediately reminded me of something else. So lend your ears to it for a minute. Or listen to the whole thing, it’s a great track, IMHO.

    So here is another song, by Tool. A real classic, not just to Tool fans, but to anyone who enjoys hard rock. Released over 20 years earlier…

    • patupaiarehe

       /  June 16, 2017

      Sorry, here’s the second clip

  9. patupaiarehe

     /  June 16, 2017

    In memory of the late Chris Cornell…