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.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 18
5362 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2479175 8-May-2020 11:35
Send private message quote this post

mdooher:

 

 I believe in a democracy the state must act lawfully in all things. If they do not, then by definition it is not a democracy. I want to live in a democracy and warts and all. If that makes me ignorant ...ok   

 

 

 

 

It absolutely should. But it should also allow for the possibility that it isn't omniscient, and provide the latitude for the people in charge to swiftly do what must be done to keep that democracy safe. Rules exist for a reason. But smart and responsible people know when those rules are not appropriate.

 

It's fine for us to come back now and wonder how we might improve the framework. It's not fine to say that there was a loophole and therefore we should put them all in jail, undo everything and start again.





iPad Pro 11" + iPhone XS + 2degrees 4tw!

 

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


738 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

  #2479176 8-May-2020 11:37
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

So I stop for every red light and my friend dies in my car, though he would have made it if I was a little less obsessed with following the rules.



So you run a stop sign, cause hey - your friends life is important right? In the process you T-bone a family sedan, instantly killing mum in the passenger seat, critically injuring dad driving, and - by pure luck, because they normally sit on mum's side, trapping with minor injury the daughter behind dad. Your friend dies anyway.

We have rules for a reason. Government has proven they can sit a short notice and change those that need to be changed.

Nb - the above scenario is not made up. I was riding a volunteer fire appliance to the exact call above and was part of a crew trying to extract the father and daughter, who was screaming the whole time for her dead mother. All because someone decided the rules didn't apply to them.

 
 
 
 


4427 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  #2479179 8-May-2020 11:40
Send private message quote this post

mdooher:

 

 I believe in a democracy the state must act lawfully in all things. If they do not, then by definition it is not a democracy. I want to live in a democracy and warts and all. If that makes me ignorant ...ok   

 

 

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes" - Obi-Wan Kenobi.

 

By which I mean your statement above precludes LITERALLY any situation where there would be justification for the state acting unlawfully. There are clearly such situations imaginable - whether the Covid-19 situation would qualify is something only history will tell us. But the fact that situations like that COULD exist means your statement is ignorant.

 

There are clearly all sorts of situations where clearly the right thing to do is not lawful.

 

Cheers - N

 

 





--

 

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.


BDFL - Memuneh
67443 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  #2479180 8-May-2020 11:41
Send private message quote this post

So, let's say we wait for the High Court to tell us what they think, then we discuss it?





 

 

These links are referral codes

 

Geekzone broadband switch | Eletricity comparison and switch | Hatch investment (NZ$ 10 bonus if NZ$100 deposited within 30 days) | Sharesies | Mighty Ape | Backblaze | Amazon | My technology disclosure 


5362 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2479181 8-May-2020 11:42
Send private message quote this post

Ge0rge:
Rikkitic:

 

So I stop for every red light and my friend dies in my car, though he would have made it if I was a little less obsessed with following the rules.



So you run a stop sign, cause hey - your friends life is important right? In the process you T-bone a family sedan, instantly killing mum in the passenger seat, critically injuring dad driving, and - by pure luck, because they normally sit on mum's side, trapping with minor injury the daughter behind dad. Your friend dies anyway.

We have rules for a reason. Government has proven they can sit a short notice and change those that need to be changed.

Nb - the above scenario is not made up. I was riding a volunteer fire appliance to the exact call above and was part of a crew trying to extract the father and daughter, who was screaming the whole time for her dead mother. All because someone decided the rules didn't apply to them.

 

 

 

It's the opposite situation. Speeding is a choice between "Break the clearly defined rule and probably nobody dies" vs. "Somebody definitely dies". This is: "It's not even clear I'm breaking any rules, people are going to die regardless, but this way far fewer do."





iPad Pro 11" + iPhone XS + 2degrees 4tw!

 

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


4427 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  #2479182 8-May-2020 11:44
Send private message quote this post

Ge0rge:
Rikkitic:

 

So I stop for every red light and my friend dies in my car, though he would have made it if I was a little less obsessed with following the rules.



So you run a stop sign, cause hey - your friends life is important right? In the process you T-bone a family sedan, instantly killing mum in the passenger seat, critically injuring dad driving, and - by pure luck, because they normally sit on mum's side, trapping with minor injury the daughter behind dad. Your friend dies anyway.

We have rules for a reason. Government has proven they can sit a short notice and change those that need to be changed.

Nb - the above scenario is not made up. I was riding a volunteer fire appliance to the exact call above and was part of a crew trying to extract the father and daughter, who was screaming the whole time for her dead mother. All because someone decided the rules didn't apply to them.

 

And that's a tragic example.

 

However what if the same situation played out 99 more times and the accident didn't occur? They got to hospital in time and their life was saved.

 

If examples rely on a single point, or on the exception behaviour to prove their point, then they are appeals to emotion, not logic or reason.

 

Cheers - N

 

 





--

 

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.


5362 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2479184 8-May-2020 11:49
Send private message quote this post

Talkiet:

 

However what if the same situation played out 99 more times and the accident didn't occur? They got to hospital in time and their life was saved.

 

 

 

 

Such as, for example, being in a volunteer fire appliance called out to the scene of a tragic accident where people were trapped in the wreckage...





iPad Pro 11" + iPhone XS + 2degrees 4tw!

 

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


 
 
 
 


Devastation by stupidity
12247 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2479185 8-May-2020 11:51
Send private message quote this post

Ge0rge:
Rikkitic:

 

So I stop for every red light and my friend dies in my car, though he would have made it if I was a little less obsessed with following the rules.



So you run a stop sign, cause hey - your friends life is important right? In the process you T-bone a family sedan, instantly killing mum in the passenger seat, critically injuring dad driving, and - by pure luck, because they normally sit on mum's side, trapping with minor injury the daughter behind dad. Your friend dies anyway.

We have rules for a reason. Government has proven they can sit a short notice and change those that need to be changed.

Nb - the above scenario is not made up. I was riding a volunteer fire appliance to the exact call above and was part of a crew trying to extract the father and daughter, who was screaming the whole time for her dead mother. All because someone decided the rules didn't apply to them.

 

The example you use should not be trivialised. That is an absolute tragedy. But I think your use of it is a little unfair. It is an extreme situation. What I actually had in my mind is the many red lights I stop for in the evening when there is no traffic at all in my town. I am never tempted to run a red light in these circumstances. I do believe in following the rules and I am never in that much of a hurry. But there are many situations where you truly do have a full and clear view and jumping the light would not be dangerous if other exceptional circumstances warranted it. In any case, this was just used as an example. There are better ones. What about the original speeding one? If it is safe to do 100 on a straight four-lane expressway with no traffic, it is probably just as safe to do 111. There are many variables involved in a choice like this.

 

 





I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney
 


Mad Scientist
22372 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2479215 8-May-2020 12:51
Send private message quote this post

snnet:

Article here


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12325702


 


Silly?


"The man objected to Justice Peters' question to substitute Ardern for Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield, who enacted the lockdown order."


Axe to grind methinks



So going back to the original guy... Is he going to get his day on court? I heard his case was thrown out.




Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.


3747 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2479216 8-May-2020 12:51
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

Geektastic:


If you accept the precedent that it is OK for governments to act illegally and to lie to their electors where they deem it to be in the public good, then you are on a slippery slope to a bad place. Who knows what they might decide to lie about 'in the public good' next time? Or the time after that? What happens if it is something you do not actually think is in the public good but is in fact in your view directly contrary to the public good?



So I stop for every red light and my friend dies in my car, though he would have made it if I was a little less obsessed with following the rules. Government says we have to jump through these legal hoops so they just let the virus spread like wildfire until the Select Committees have all had their say. Thousands die but hoopty-hoo, bureaucracy has won the day!


 



I think that the government is in a different position from an individual. Firstly, it is within their power to change the law. Secondly, there are already legal mechanisms to extend their powers in times of threat. NB that they don't have to wait for Select Committees. They can pass legislation under urgency. That is the whole point of urgency (rather than to avoid debate on MP's salary increases).

So, you as an individual have to make the decision to break the law and save your friend's life. The government instead allows ambulances to drive through red lights and exceed the speed limit.

NB also that intentionally breaking the law is accepted as part of a democracy, in the sense of protest actions.

3121 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2479270 8-May-2020 14:35
Send private message quote this post

mdooher: I believe in a democracy the state must act lawfully in all things. If they do not, then by definition it is not a democracy. I want to live in a democracy and warts and all. If that makes me ignorant ...ok   

 

Your preference is you WOULD rather people die, it's just you can't say it honestly which is disappointing.

 

The problem is with a number of folks here the way I interpret is that they would have preferred more death as then they could have blamed the govt for not responding sooner. And because it us under control they have pivoted to open the country up as I can't accept the overreach.

 

The simple reality is we just need to look overseas and see the death rates, and that could VERY EASILY have been NZ had the Government not taken decisive actions. If some laws weren't updated to reflect it meh, I am ok with that as they have done what needed to be done to save a lot of lives. The government moved quickly to have this panel where the Opposition can opine on what they would have done differently. They are in easy position that they can say whatever they want as the buck never stopped with them.

 

I see very little difference with a few of the posters here complaining about government overreach and the protesters in the US demanding the guvvimint reopen the country.

 

The only way we will know the truth is 2+ years down the track when stats reports all the deaths. Until then lets just listen to science and the medical professionals.

 

And I hope you have your DNR updated and prepared to offer up your whole family as tribute to the great god of our economy.





and


3876 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2479273 8-May-2020 14:51
Send private message quote this post

There are four aspects here.

The first is practical. It was clear what needed to be done as a result of COVID19. I have absolutely no problem with what was done with the lock down. It has been successful and was necessary.

The second is legislative. If the government didn't have the powers needed they could have gotten them very quickly. Parliament could and did pass legislation incredibly quickly to give the government whatever powers are required.

The third is the rule of law. This is incredibly important and not negotiable. As above the government can very quickly give itself broad powers and make them retrospective.

The fourth is transparency. Refusing to release the crown law option stinks. It strongly suggests that there is something very wrong going on.

It's an unprecedented crisis but if there has been a broad abuse of powers then there needs to be a royal commission. I'd suggest there should be one on the COVID 19 crisis anyway but this needs independent and impartial review. Not now but once the dust settles.

5733 posts

Uber Geek


  #2479277 8-May-2020 15:11
Send private message quote this post

Handle9: There are four aspects here.

The first is practical. It was clear what needed to be done as a result of COVID19. I have absolutely no problem with what was done with the lock down. It has been successful and was necessary.

The second is legislative. If the government didn't have the powers needed they could have gotten them very quickly. Parliament could and did pass legislation incredibly quickly to give the government whatever powers are required.

The third is the rule of law. This is incredibly important and not negotiable. As above the government can very quickly give itself broad powers and make them retrospective.

The fourth is transparency. Refusing to release the crown law option stinks. It strongly suggests that there is something very wrong going on.

It's an unprecedented crisis but if there has been a broad abuse of powers then there needs to be a royal commission. I'd suggest there should be one on the COVID 19 crisis anyway but this needs independent and impartial review. Not now but once the dust settles.

 

Great summary. 

 

I don't have problem with the steps taken, in fact I think they should have been taken earlier. 

 

However, transparency is important, especially when freedoms that are on place due to statute or custom have been suspended.  If there was a risk to public obedience and therefore health of releasing the crown law advice, that risk has all but passed now.





Mike

5362 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2479288 8-May-2020 15:30
Send private message quote this post

MikeAqua:

 

However, transparency is important, especially when freedoms that are on place due to statute or custom have been suspended.  If there was a risk to public obedience and therefore health of releasing the crown law advice, that risk has all but passed now.

 

 

 

 

Which is why the government created a special committee explicitly to oversee the government's handling of the situation, gave it practically unlimited powers to call anyone it wanted, gave the opposition 2/3rds of the membership, put Simon Bridges in charge of it, and live streamed it every day. How much more transparent could they realistically be?





iPad Pro 11" + iPhone XS + 2degrees 4tw!

 

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


Hmm, what to write...
1134 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #2479289 8-May-2020 15:34
Send private message quote this post

Handle9: 
The third is the rule of law. This is incredibly important and not negotiable. As above the government can very quickly give itself broad powers and make them retrospective.

 

As a normal principle, retrospective laws should not be made (yes they have done it to get themselves out of trouble for election shenanigans, but nobody had the money, time or cared enough to stop them)

 

It will be much more difficult in this case because any change could relate to matters that are the subject of prospective court decisions or current litigation. They will need to ensure they don't adversely effect the person bringing the case.

 

Should be interesting anyway.





Matthew


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 18
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



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 »

Menulog change colours as parent company merges with Dutch food delivery service
Posted 2-Jul-2020 07:53


Techweek2020 goes digital to make it easier for Kiwis to connect and learn
Posted 2-Jul-2020 07:48


Catalyst Cloud launches new Solutions Hub to support their kiwi Partners and Customers
Posted 2-Jul-2020 07:44


Microsoft to help New Zealand job seekers acquire new digital skills needed for the COVID-19 economy
Posted 2-Jul-2020 07:41


Hewlett Packard Enterprise introduces new HPE GreenLake cloud services
Posted 24-Jun-2020 08:07


New cloud data protection services from Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Posted 24-Jun-2020 07:58


Hewlett Packard Enterprise unveils HPE Ezmeral, new software portfolio and brand
Posted 24-Jun-2020 07:10


Apple reveals new developer technologies to foster the next generation of apps
Posted 23-Jun-2020 15:30


Poly introduces solutions for Microsoft Teams Rooms
Posted 23-Jun-2020 15:14


Lenovo launches new ThinkPad P Series mobile workstations
Posted 23-Jun-2020 09:17


Lenovo brings Linux certification to ThinkPad and ThinkStation Workstation portfolio
Posted 23-Jun-2020 08:56


Apple introduces new features for iPhone iOS14 and iPadOS 14
Posted 23-Jun-2020 08:28


Apple announces Mac transition to Apple silicon
Posted 23-Jun-2020 08:18


OPPO A72 a top mid-tier smartphone
Posted 19-Jun-2020 18:02


D-Link A/NZ launches new smart AX1500 Wi-Fi 6 Router
Posted 19-Jun-2020 15:03



Geekzone Live »

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


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



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.