I couldn't help but notice when I was in DSE today that they are selling Norton AV2007 for $40 with a $40 cashback by redeption from Symantec and a FREE upgrade to Norton AV 2008.
That's a deal that's hard to beat! I'm sure stocks won't last long :-)
More details as they come to hand.
2115 : Reports of loss of power in some parts of Gisborne and broken windows in some houses
2145: A civil defence emergency has been declared. Reports indicate there have been some buildings collapse. No word on injuries.
2230: USAR Task Forces 1 & 3 have been activated and being deployed to Gisborne.
Further details available here
NZ is unique anywhere in the world in that everybody in this country has automatic no fault accident insurance no matter whay they're doing. If you have a car accident then ACC will pay the bulk of your costs. If you get in a fight when you're drunk and end up needing an ambulance and spending time in hospital you're also covered. Rather than needing to insure ourselves privately as is the case in every other country in the world we are lucky enough to have this accident insurance provided to us automatically.
So why pick on motorists?
The reality is that motor vehicle accidents are one of the biggest costs to ACC. If you look back 15 years ago our road toll was far greater because it was far more common to die in a motor vehicle accident. Due to increased safety features in late model vehicles it is now common to survive accidents that would have killed you in the past. The result is a significant increase in the costs of rehabilitation which in some cases can easily cost $10 million or more over the life of an individual if continual care is required. Cross subsidising care costs from other other parts of ACC simply isn't fair either, why should somebody who doesn't drive a car have to pay increased ACC levies?
Rather than trying to pick faults with ACC questions should really be asked about the future of ACC. Do we need automatic no fault accident cover for every individual in this country? Many would argue that we should have and that nothing should change. Should ACC be privatised again and competitors be allowed to provide policies to companies and individuals who may choose to take cover from another insurance company? There are plenty of things that should be discussed in an open forum rather than critisising ACC for doing nothing other than what they are tasked to do.
Right now on Ferrit these are available from Hill & Stewart for $218 incl free shipping. That's a deal that's hard to beat! I have no idea how long this price will last for so it would pay to get in now!
One thing I had been meaning to do for some time however was hook my PC up to my amp for 5.1 audio, I had this hooked up previously but when I changed motherboards I had not got around to making a SDDIF output cable to hook up to the motherboard pinout as my motherboard had no external connector.
My aim was to have both 5.1 and 2ch PCM stereo output via SPDIF and stereo audio simultaneously output via the 3.5mm line out which is hooked up to my TV. This means I can hear the audio my TV without running it through the amp but also allows me to turn on my amp for full 5.1 or 2ch stereo audio when I'm playing a DVD. This is easily done under XP but Vista is another story.
After spending numerous hours playing with my system configuration I did a quick Google search to find that this can't be done under Vista with a Realtek audio chipset. Infact it can't be done with most soundcards. Microsoft have changed Vista so that it's only possible to output via SPDIF and analogue simultaneously if you want stereo PCM from both. It is not possible to have a 5.1 feed via SPDIF and 2ch PCM stereo via analogue. This is one of the great new DRM "features" built into Vista that MS didn't tell is about!
So now I'm stuck unable to do what I want to do which I don't believe is an unreasonable configuration for anybody who uses a Vista machine as a HTPC/PVR. I don't always want to turn my amp on to watch a simple TV show and am happy with my TV's audio for many shows.
My only option is to find a cheap SPDIF->analogue converter so I can split the SPDIF feed both into my amp and adapter which will give me a stereo analogue feed. Unfortunately these aren't cheap. Even better would be for MS to fix this "bug" and restore the configuration that has worked for years but I don't see this happening. They dropped their pants for the motion picture and music industries to impose tough DRM and don't seem to care how these can affect end users.
I guarantee I'll be walking out of your shop at the hint of away in a manger and will support stores who are interested in keeping their customers and not scaring them away! :-)
There has already been misguided comments by the media today that your current TV will become worthless which is not the case. Any existing TV will still continue to function after the analogue shut off however you will not be able to receive TV broadcasts without a STB that's compatible with Freeview, Sky or TelstraClear (or whoever else is around in 10 years time!) Within the next couple of years expect virtually every flat screen TV that launches in the market to have a built in DVB-T tuner that will receive the Freeview service using a standard UHF aerial so an additional STB will not be required.
That was until this this month.
Tone have apparently done their homework and asked a few techy audiophile people to talk about cheap vs expensive HDMI cables. If you've ever read Gizmodo or done a Google search on the topic you'll realise this is a very hot topic with varying opinions on the matter. Typically however there are numerous tests available online that do show that there is no real difference in the quality of a signal transmitted over cheap or expensive HDMI cable unless you're talking about cable lengths in excess of probably 10 metres. HDMI is a digital signal and the quality of cable is nowhere near as relevant as with an analogue signal such as component.
So why then did Tone get a whole pile of "experts" to write on the topic and all write about how essential an expensive HDMI cable is and that buying a cheap one is a waste of money? There were a couple of people who said that picture degredation was very obvious with the cheap cables, how about providing us some proof or some research?
The whole issue of expensive cables has been a hot topic with years, lead by Monster who sell very expensive cables, give great commission to stores to sell their products, and use deceptive marketing* to sell their products. There is a little more about Monster here on Gizmodo.
If you're in the market for a HDMI cable I suggest following some basic advice. Buy a $20 cable. Buy a $200 cable. Keep your receipts and try them both. If you can't tell the difference then take the $200 one back for a refund. It's as simple as that. Don't get sucked into wasting your money on a piece of wire that's supposed to have magical properties.
*Monster have a stand that is typically on display at various Harvey Norman stores showing 2 LCD screens playing the same DVD. One shows a monster cable in bright crisp colours, the other shows the same picture looking quite pale on cheap cable. This display is used by salespeople to push people into buying $200 cables to hook their Sky box up to their new flat screen TV to ensure the best picture quality (completely ignoring the fact Sky TV have an extremely low bitrate and poor picture quality anyway). Look at the back of this display and you'll see the Monster screen uses the component output, the other screen uses a composite signal. Hardly a fair test is it?
What astounds me is that the company seems to only have one explanation for this situation - illegal music downloads are apparently damaging the music business so badly they were unable to continue trading.
Somebody tell JB HiFi who are currently in the middle of a huge store rollout program in both New Zealand and Australia that the music industry is suffering and they'll laugh at you. There is plenty of money to be made selling music. If Sounds are so happy to blame illegal music downloads then why aren't they also blaming legal music downloads? The fact that it's illegal in NZ to rip a CD to an iPod leaves people with no choice but to buy music online if they want to legally listen to music on a portable device so logically they don't want to pay for music twice - once for their iPod and again for a CD. And what about their pricing? Who wants to pay $33.99 for a new release CD from a Sounds store when JB HiFi and The Warehouse can sell me the same product for somewehre around the $22 - $25 range? With the $US at it's current level it's also cheaper to buy CD's from the USA and ship them to NZ than to buy product from Sounds.
I'm sorry that your business failed guys but don't go blaming illegal music downloads. They are the least of your problems. Despite illegal downloads existing music company executivies are still waking up each morning and going to work and running extremtly profitable businesses and there are plenty of very music retailers such as JB HiFi who are doing extremely well even with legal music downloads now taking a huge chunk of the music market.
A quick survey on my way home shows that no other chains have yet followed.
BP have lead the way in the NZ fuel market and have been first to increase their price every time over the past 12 months. My quick market research shows the only times BP have been first to drop has been on the 6 occasions where their price increase has not been matched by competitors forcing BP to reduce their price.
BP have been selling diesel at 122.9 for over 2 weeks now whereas Shell, Mobil, Challenge and Caltex have all kept their price at 118.9 and not followed BP's increase. BP also raised their petrol prices by 5c per litre over the busy Labour Weekend period, again an increase that all other chains did not follow on.
If you're a BP customer I think you really need to ask yourself why you're supporting a company that takes pride in always being the first to raise prices and typically the last to drop them... Vote with your feet (and wallet) and go elsewhere. Don't give them your money. Boycott BP.