Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | ... | 52
15122 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3926

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1904408 20-Nov-2017 11:36
Send private message quote this post

I've said this before, if major reports say it's not safe, and they send people in and they are injured or die, the top 3 from the party in power should step down (and face charges). They won't, they will squirm their way out of it. There should be no option to move the blame. 

 

 


10173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1632

Trusted

  Reply # 1904416 20-Nov-2017 11:46
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

I've said this before, if major reports say it's not safe, and they send people in and they are injured or die, the top 3 from the party in power should step down (and face charges). They won't, they will squirm their way out of it. There should be no option to move the blame. 

 

 

 

 

I agree. But what are these major reports? What about the mining manager with the many international mining experts saying it can be done safely and quickly? This tells me that one side is lying. Its either reports that it is not safe or its reports that it is


 
 
 
 


15122 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3926

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1904423 20-Nov-2017 11:53
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

networkn:

 

I've said this before, if major reports say it's not safe, and they send people in and they are injured or die, the top 3 from the party in power should step down (and face charges). They won't, they will squirm their way out of it. There should be no option to move the blame. 

 

 

 

 

I agree. But what are these major reports? What about the mining manager with the many international mining experts saying it can be done safely and quickly? This tells me that one side is lying. Its either reports that it is not safe or its reports that it is

 

 

Regardless, sending down live people to recover the remains (of which most experts agree there will be mostly ash and not much else) is negligent and reckless. Even if one report says it's too risky, they shouldn't even consider it. It's huge money, it's massive people resources and we have other things for the living which should be the higher priority.

 

As I have mentioned before, I *really* feel for those families, it's a tragedy, however, I think grief is affecting logic. It's normal that this is the case, but it's the responsibility of those who are logical to not feed the emotions of the families and help them understand that surely *any* risk is too great.

 

I do understand that part of their motivation, is that they feel someone lied about the safety of the mine and they want justice for their dead loved ones, however, it seems unreasonable (to me) to risk the safety of innocent rescue and recovery staff to obtain that. (Even if they are willing and volunteer). I'd like to think I'd feel the same way if it were my uncle, brother or father down there. The money should be spent on a nice memorial and in support of the families in their lives going forward. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2791

Subscriber

  Reply # 1904424 20-Nov-2017 11:54
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

I've said this before, if major reports say it's not safe, and they send people in and they are injured or die, the top 3 from the party in power should step down (and face charges). They won't, they will squirm their way out of it. There should be no option to move the blame. 

 

 

 

 

This I agree with in principle. But if people choose to go in in spite of known risks, and are allowed to, and the risks are understood and accepted by those who go, then they are doing it with eyes open and must accept responsibility for their own fate.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


15122 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3926

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1904467 20-Nov-2017 11:59
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

I've said this before, if major reports say it's not safe, and they send people in and they are injured or die, the top 3 from the party in power should step down (and face charges). They won't, they will squirm their way out of it. There should be no option to move the blame. 

 

 

 

 

This I agree with in principle. But if people choose to go in in spite of known risks, and are allowed to, and the risks are understood and accepted by those who go, then they are doing it with eyes open and must accept responsibility for their own fate.

 

 

 

 

What about their families? Will the taxpayer then pay for recovery of those people? What about support financial and resources spent in dealing with the aftermath? Labours speciality is intervening (nanny state) in peoples lives (Even you can admit that) and they, and other governments have put so many workplace protections in, waiving it for this, would be completely contradictory.

 

The law currently prevents it. They will have to repeal the current laws to allow for this. It's an unacceptable use of taxpayers resources (political time and money) for what gain? Will the country be more productive, will justice be done and we can all sleep better at night? 


5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2791

Subscriber

  Reply # 1904472 20-Nov-2017 12:05
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

Regardless, sending down live people to recover the remains (of which most experts agree there will be mostly ash and not much else) is negligent and reckless. Even if one report says it's too risky, they shouldn't even consider it. It's huge money, it's massive people resources and we have other things for the living which should be the higher priority.

 

As I have mentioned before, I *really* feel for those families, it's a tragedy, however, I think grief is affecting logic. It's normal that this is the case, but it's the responsibility of those who are logical to not feed the emotions of the families and help them understand that surely *any* risk is too great.

 

I do understand that part of their motivation, is that they feel someone lied about the safety of the mine and they want justice for their dead loved ones, however, it seems unreasonable (to me) to risk the safety of innocent rescue and recovery staff to obtain that. (Even if they are willing and volunteer). I'd like to think I'd feel the same way if it were my uncle, brother or father down there. The money should be spent on a nice memorial and in support of the families in their lives going forward. 

 

 

I am not into conspiracy theories, but I think part of the cloud still hanging over this is the suspicion that maybe some miners survived, at least initially, and could in principle have been rescued and certain parties are desperate to cover this up. I suspect the families are driven as much by a desire to know once and for all what actually happened down there as by grief. Entering the drift might bring some certainty.

 

 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


Onward
11415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5134

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1904473 20-Nov-2017 12:06
Send private message quote this post

I would prefer if the Government admitted they were mistaken during the election and not go in than to stubbornly continue and put more lives at risk should their current advice be that they should not re-enter the mine.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


15122 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3926

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1904481 20-Nov-2017 12:12
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

I would prefer if the Government admitted they were mistaken during the election and not go in than to stubbornly continue and put more lives at risk should their current advice be that they should not re-enter the mine.

 

 

If they were "mistaken" should someone be held to account for that "mistake". Even if this was National, I'd expect one of the top ministers to step down as a result, they mislead the public in my view. 

 

Just like with lots of stuff, Labour spoke before they had all the facts and will possibly now have made a wound even more raw for the families. 


5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2791

Subscriber

  Reply # 1904482 20-Nov-2017 12:13
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

What about their families? Will the taxpayer then pay for recovery of those people? What about support financial and resources spent in dealing with the aftermath? Labours speciality is intervening (nanny state) in peoples lives (Even you can admit that) and they, and other governments have put so many workplace protections in, waiving it for this, would be completely contradictory.

 

The law currently prevents it. They will have to repeal the current laws to allow for this. It's an unacceptable use of taxpayers resources (political time and money) for what gain? Will the country be more productive, will justice be done and we can all sleep better at night? 

 

 

I get your point but if people are willing to accept the risk in full knowledge of what it is and go in anyway, then that should be up to them. Our society accepts mountaineers and base jumpers and free divers and other risk-takers and I don't see a fundamental difference here. Some take risks for recreational thrills, others to possibly help ease someone's pain. What is the difference? It is up to the risk-taker.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


15122 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3926

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1904484 20-Nov-2017 12:14
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

Regardless, sending down live people to recover the remains (of which most experts agree there will be mostly ash and not much else) is negligent and reckless. Even if one report says it's too risky, they shouldn't even consider it. It's huge money, it's massive people resources and we have other things for the living which should be the higher priority.

 

As I have mentioned before, I *really* feel for those families, it's a tragedy, however, I think grief is affecting logic. It's normal that this is the case, but it's the responsibility of those who are logical to not feed the emotions of the families and help them understand that surely *any* risk is too great.

 

I do understand that part of their motivation, is that they feel someone lied about the safety of the mine and they want justice for their dead loved ones, however, it seems unreasonable (to me) to risk the safety of innocent rescue and recovery staff to obtain that. (Even if they are willing and volunteer). I'd like to think I'd feel the same way if it were my uncle, brother or father down there. The money should be spent on a nice memorial and in support of the families in their lives going forward. 

 

 

I am not into conspiracy theories, but I think part of the cloud still hanging over this is the suspicion that maybe some miners survived, at least initially, and could in principle have been rescued and certain parties are desperate to cover this up. I suspect the families are driven as much by a desire to know once and for all what actually happened down there as by grief. Entering the drift might bring some certainty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if they survived the initial blast, it was most definitely not safe in the first week or more to go into the mine, and the risk would have been extreme. I can't imagine the agony the families would feel considering those scenarios.

 

What motivation would there have been from the government to not act if it was safe? 

 

 


Onward
11415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5134

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1904486 20-Nov-2017 12:15
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

MikeB4:

 

I would prefer if the Government admitted they were mistaken during the election and not go in than to stubbornly continue and put more lives at risk should their current advice be that they should not re-enter the mine.

 

 

If they were "mistaken" should someone be held to account for that "mistake". Even if this was National, I'd expect one of the top ministers to step down as a result, they mislead the public in my view. 

 

Just like with lots of stuff, Labour spoke before they had all the facts and will possibly now have made a wound even more raw for the families. 

 

 

No, as they were not Ministers at the time. 





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


15122 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3926

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1904487 20-Nov-2017 12:19
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

What about their families? Will the taxpayer then pay for recovery of those people? What about support financial and resources spent in dealing with the aftermath? Labours speciality is intervening (nanny state) in peoples lives (Even you can admit that) and they, and other governments have put so many workplace protections in, waiving it for this, would be completely contradictory.

 

The law currently prevents it. They will have to repeal the current laws to allow for this. It's an unacceptable use of taxpayers resources (political time and money) for what gain? Will the country be more productive, will justice be done and we can all sleep better at night? 

 

 

I get your point but if people are willing to accept the risk in full knowledge of what it is and go in anyway, then that should be up to them. Our society accepts mountaineers and base jumpers and free divers and other risk-takers and I don't see a fundamental difference here. Some take risks for recreational thrills, others to possibly help ease someone's pain. What is the difference? It is up to the risk-taker.

 

 

 

 

So if the risk taker has a young family who relies on their financial and other types of support and that person dies or is grievously injured and requires massive and expensive (potentially long term) medical attention, would you expect the taxpayer to pickup the tab for that ? 

 

Obviously, that is one worst case scenarios. 

 

Even if they go in knowing the risks, and come out with both remains and rescuers intact, does that justify the risk, money, time and resources? I don't think it does. It wouldn't prove a report stating it was too risky, wrong, it could simply have been luck on the day. If they had gone in 2 months ago, maybe not a good result. Too much risk, too little reward. It's not as if they are going to recover a magic artifact that will solve clean energy, or the cure for cancer. 

 

 


15122 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3926

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1904488 20-Nov-2017 12:20
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

networkn:

 

MikeB4:

 

I would prefer if the Government admitted they were mistaken during the election and not go in than to stubbornly continue and put more lives at risk should their current advice be that they should not re-enter the mine.

 

 

If they were "mistaken" should someone be held to account for that "mistake". Even if this was National, I'd expect one of the top ministers to step down as a result, they mislead the public in my view. 

 

Just like with lots of stuff, Labour spoke before they had all the facts and will possibly now have made a wound even more raw for the families. 

 

 

No, as they were not Ministers at the time. 

 

 

The ministers at the time accepted the reports they were presented with. 

 

The non-ministers, clearly without all the facts, made statements and promises in order to be elected. Would they have been elected without it? Who knows. It would require consequences in my opinion.


Onward
11415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5134

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1904490 20-Nov-2017 12:23
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

 

 

The ministers at the time accepted the reports they were presented with. 

 

The non-ministers, clearly without all the facts, made statements and promises in order to be elected. Would they have been elected without it? Who knows. It would require consequences in my opinion.

 

 

There were hundreds of policy statements during the election, it is silly to say one of them was to get them elected. 





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


Onward
11415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5134

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1904491 20-Nov-2017 12:24
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Reading this thread I am sure if the ABs lose to Wales next weekend it will be Jacinda Arnerns fault.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | ... | 52
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

UAV Traffic Management Trial launching today in New Zealand
Posted 12-Dec-2017 16:06


UFB connections pass 460,000
Posted 11-Dec-2017 11:26


The Warehouse Group to adopt IBM Cloud to support digital transformation
Posted 11-Dec-2017 11:22


Dimension Data peeks into digital business 2018
Posted 11-Dec-2017 10:55


2018 Cyber Security Predictions
Posted 7-Dec-2017 14:55


Global Govtech Accelerator to drive public sector innovation in Wellington
Posted 7-Dec-2017 11:21


Stuff Pix media strategy a new direction
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:37


Digital transformation is dead
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:31


Fake news and cyber security
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:27


Dimension Data New Zealand strengthens cybersecurity practice
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:27


Epson NZ launches new Expression Premium Photo range
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:26


Eventbrite and Twickets launch integration partnership in Australia and New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:23


New Fujifilm macro lens lands in New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:16


Cyber security not being taken seriously enough
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:13


Sony commences Android 8.0 Oreo rollout in New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:08



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.