Homeopathy (that's just water in a bottle, not to be confused with herbal medicine) gets a second chance in the UK -- more interviews with fans of homeopathy are coming, to be collated alongside science and medical conclusions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/mar/12/mps-and-evidence-for-...

Personally, I just want people to know that it's water, just water, and NOTHING ELSE in homeopathy. It's sold in pharmacies in New Zealand alongside the herbals, and people dont' realise that they're buying incredibly expensive water that has been shaken to magically give it some kinda memory.

People are welcome to make an informed choice to treat their ailments with magic water. The problem is the homeopathy industry not displaying prominently that their products are only water.

The conclusions on a kiwiblog post really annoyed me. (yeah, i know, i shouldn't read that blog if i wanna keep my faith in NZ)

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/03/the_gender_pay_gap.html
quote:

I’m generally reluctant to conclude discrimination, and look for other factors, because discrimination is just so plain stupid. I can’t understand how anyone would think someone is more or less capable in a job because of their gender, and would pay them less. Mind you, I think the discrimination might be subconscious, rather than a conscious decision.

To paraphrase, the author thinks discriminating on gender is stupid, therefore gender discrimination probably isn't the reason women graduates are consistently paid less than men graduates with the same degree.

That logic just doesn't bare up to scrutiny, that because something is stupid it's therefore not what's happening.

Regardless, the study didn't find a difference in whether graduates gets employed or not. Both men and women graduates found jobs; but the woman was consistently given a lower starting salary than the man. The employer is not thinking "the woman can't do the job". They are employing women and paying them less.

There's two aspect to this:
1) Women doing the same job as men and getting paid less for it.
2) Jobs seen as "women's work" are paid less.

It's not because women take time off to raise children, because we're talking starting rates of someone who has just graduated from university.

We got a new copyright act in New Zealand late last year - any regular reader of my blog will already know this.

Amongst the many changes, the new copyright act finally allowed "format shifting" - for example copying your music from your CD collection into your ipod.

However, this was limited to sound recordings only. - You cannot copy that movie or tv show you have recorded into your ipod.

Here's a quote from NZ's Ministry of Economic Development FAQ explaining exactly that:

Why is there a format shifting provision and why is it limited to sound recordings?

The new format shifting provision responds to the concern that people want to transfer music they have legitimately bought onto different devices to take advantage of new technology. It also recognises this has been common practice for a long time.

The markets for audio visual works and music are evolving, they are different. There are numerous business models for audiovisual works that do not apply to music. Theatrical release, commercial rental (both physical and online models), free-to-air TV and pay TV do not have counterparts of any significant extent for music. It is also unlikely that consumption of audio visual works "on the move" using mp3 players and the like will ever be as ubiquitous as for music. It is not, therefore, possible to simply apply the conclusions reached about music to audio visual works.

So the new copyright act says we're allowed to "format shift" sound -- but only sound.
We're not allowed to format shift video, or images, or text.

from the MED FAQ:

Why is there a format shifting provision and why is it limited to sound recordings?

The new format shifting provision responds to the concern that people want to transfer music they have legitimately bought onto different devices to take advantage of new technology. It also recognises this has been common practice for a long time.

The markets for audio visual works and music are evolving, they are different. There are numerous business models for audiovisual works that do not apply to music. Theatrical release, commercial rental (both physical and online models), free-to-air TV and pay TV do not have counterparts of any significant extent for music. It is also unlikely that consumption of audio visual works "on the move" using mp3 players and the like will ever be as ubiquitous as for music. It is not, therefore, possible to simply apply the conclusions reached about music to audio visual works.

the argument seems to be that something needs to be "ubiquitous", otherwise we'll make it illegal. (It also seems strange to say that people don't want to consume audio visual works on the move - have they never been on a long haul flight?)

The whole document ignores other forms that creative works take.

The new provisions for format shifting in the copyright act are restricted to audio only -- because audiovisual isn't "ubiquitous" enough.

see:

FQ&As about the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill

Why is there a format shifting provision and why is it limited to sound recordings?