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 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1123634 7-Sep-2014 15:12
Send private message

Jase2985:
Rikkitic: I haven’t read all the comments but I did sample some. I don’t expect my 2 cents will change anything but here it is anyway: First, I don’t believe in left/right adversarial nonsense, just good ideas and bad ideas. Both sides have some of both. What always gets me about these types of discussions, though, is those who doggedly cling to their ideologies regardless of the consequences. In other words, the notion that children should be left to suffer because their parents are stupid or selfish or immoral or otherwise not of an acceptable standard. Enlightened self-interest says that society has to step in for its own protection regardless of whose fault it is. The alternative is to sit on your high horse claiming the moral high ground while the world crumbles around you as people raised without any values burgle your home, assault you on the street and do no productive work. I would far rather invest in turning these people around while they are still kids than building prisons for them all. And maybe the first generation freed from the hopelessness cycle might even choose to have fewer children. That seems to work elsewhere.


The kids shouldn't be made to suffer peroid, but the problem is throwing more money at the parents (because the government cant give the kids the money) doesn't necessarily help the children.

we need to help change the ideology to put the kids first in those at risk faimiles.

that to me is the biggest problem at the moment. the kids are not considered to be a priority


There are a couple of food delivery programs where menus are worked out and supplied in advance together with all the food you need to make the recipe and cooking instruction included etc.

Any reason why benefits could not be partly replaced by a service like that so that the family is getting food not money? And learning to cook good nutritious meals at the same time?







1393 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 255

Subscriber

  Reply # 1123648 7-Sep-2014 15:33
One person supports this post
Send private message

Rikkitic: I haven’t read all the comments but I did sample some. I don’t expect my 2 cents will change anything but here it is anyway: First, I don’t believe in left/right adversarial nonsense, just good ideas and bad ideas. Both sides have some of both. What always gets me about these types of discussions, though, is those who doggedly cling to their ideologies regardless of the consequences. In other words, the notion that children should be left to suffer because their parents are stupid or selfish or immoral or otherwise not of an acceptable standard. Enlightened self-interest says that society has to step in for its own protection regardless of whose fault it is. The alternative is to sit on your high horse claiming the moral high ground while the world crumbles around you as people raised without any values burgle your home, assault you on the street and do no productive work. I would far rather invest in turning these people around while they are still kids than building prisons for them all. And maybe the first generation freed from the hopelessness cycle might even choose to have fewer children. That seems to work elsewhere.


But you're ignoring the fact that if you don't break the cycle then you're throwing good money after bad. It is like someone with drug or alcohol issues - do you keep giving them money or do you put them in rehab and get them clean before helping them get back on their feet financially? same thing with these families - do you keep throwing more money at the problem or do you intervene for the sake of the children and ensure that the cycle of bad decisions are not repeated over and over again. No one is questioning wether or not to help the kids - the question is whether something is done about the irresponsible decisions the parents make which end up negatively impacting the quality of life for their children and those around them who are also having to carrying some of the burden (such as the grandparents taking care of the grand children).




Laptop: MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2017)
Desktop: iMac (27-inch, 2017)
Smartphone: iPhone X 256GB 'Space Grey'
Additional devices: Unifi Security Gateway, Unifi Switch, Unifi AP AC HD, Unifi Cloud Key, Apple TV 4K 64GB
Services: iCloud, YouTube Premium, Wordpress, Skinny

 


799 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 355


  Reply # 1123673 7-Sep-2014 16:10
Send private message

Jase2985:
Rikkitic: I haven’t read all the comments but I did sample some. I don’t expect my 2 cents will change anything but here it is anyway: First, I don’t believe in left/right adversarial nonsense, just good ideas and bad ideas. Both sides have some of both. What always gets me about these types of discussions, though, is those who doggedly cling to their ideologies regardless of the consequences. In other words, the notion that children should be left to suffer because their parents are stupid or selfish or immoral or otherwise not of an acceptable standard. Enlightened self-interest says that society has to step in for its own protection regardless of whose fault it is. The alternative is to sit on your high horse claiming the moral high ground while the world crumbles around you as people raised without any values burgle your home, assault you on the street and do no productive work. I would far rather invest in turning these people around while they are still kids than building prisons for them all. And maybe the first generation freed from the hopelessness cycle might even choose to have fewer children. That seems to work elsewhere.


The kids shouldn't be made to suffer peroid, but the problem is throwing more money at the parents (because the government cant give the kids the money) doesn't necessarily help the children.

we need to help change the ideology to put the kids first in those at risk faimiles.

that to me is the biggest problem at the moment. the kids are not considered to be a priority


Well here's a thought
http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2014/07/07/study-states-that-raised-minimum-wage-had-stronger-job-growth/


gzt

10121 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1540


  Reply # 1123694 7-Sep-2014 16:37
Send private message

sir1963

There is an existing minimum wage topic active:

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=151782&page_no=2

That is the best place for detailed discussion on that side of it.

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user


  Reply # 1128140 14-Sep-2014 04:31
Send private message

there seems to be a belief amongst some posters that poverty does not really exist. I find this a little odd. I assume the beggers ,the homeless ,the crimes bought on by desperation and those downtrodden and chastised have just coincidentally sprung out of the blue.
the way to fix this cycle is to help. how many ppl here run programming classes for lower socioeconomic peoples. who is keen to volunteer their time? Dont be all surprised about crime addiction and bad choices when you live in a empathy void society that can fill 14 pages of excuses as to why it's pointless to assist those less fortunate.
you reap what you sew.

200 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 63


  Reply # 1128227 14-Sep-2014 11:12

I read a story in the paper yesterday or the other day about a woman who was drinking in a pub while her young children wandered the streets.  Heart breaking.  If she had more money on the benefit she could have paid for a babysitter and enjoyed a guilt-free knees up at the local.  No one should have been put in the position she was in.   

Glurp
7988 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3714

Subscriber

  Reply # 1128237 14-Sep-2014 11:40
2 people support this post
Send private message

Bobdn: I read a story in the paper yesterday or the other day about a woman who was drinking in a pub while her young children wandered the streets.  Heart breaking.  If she had more money on the benefit she could have paid for a babysitter and enjoyed a guilt-free knees up at the local.  No one should have been put in the position she was in.   

 

 

Well-said and amusing. But what I personally have a problem with is those who are so obsessed with punishing bad parents that they seem not to care what happens to the children who are the meat in the sandwich. I certainly don't think this woman or people like her should be given money but I don't really care whether or not she gets a benefit she doesn't deserve as long as the children get the help they need. That is what matters. Not the parents who are already beyond redemption.

 





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


2835 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 479


  Reply # 1128270 14-Sep-2014 12:49
Send private message

Solving the poverty problem.  Where did it come from so far as New Zealand is concerned?

Part of the solution is a good rounded education.  Give everyone the tools to get on in life.  It's a bit of give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for life.

I don't think we focus enough on some of the stuff people need to know to get along on life any more.  Life skills and basic budgetary skills are lacking.  It's all very well having the latest IT equipment in the schools but the upcoming generations need to know a bit about the more basic things in life as well.

We are too preoccupied with tertiary education and also training people in areas where there is no demand.  We need more people in the sciences however we seem to have an over supply in sporting qualifications.  There needs to be some mechanism to focus people to the areas where graduates are needed. We need people in jobs that help create wealth.

There needs to be a return to the apprenticeship system with some sort of incentive for business to take on apprentices. We have a shortage of skilled tradesmen in many areas.  Businesses in some cases cannot afford the cost of training apprentices.  Also it appears the education system doesn't recognise the trades as a worthwhile career.  Teachers being university graduates, in many cases see a university education as the only pathway.

A case in point WRT lack of trades people is the number of foreigners Chorus employ. Why aren't New Zealanders doing these jobs?  By the way I'm not suggesting an outfit like Chorus cannot afford to pay to train apprentices.  The question needs to be asked though as to why they have imported tradesmen, when there are plenty of people in New Zealand capable of doing this work.

The other things is we are all happy to have access to cheap imports from overseas, many of the items are made with labour costs much less than here in New Zealand.

Another area of concern is there are more and more paper shufflers in all areas who consume but don't contribute anything towards wealth creation. Plenty of talk and no action.

Take a look here to see what I mean;

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/insulation-batts-scandal-a-rudd-in-the-roof/story-fni0cwl5-1227045576416?nk=b581d6cb47152bce33649689517feda2 






Sony Xperia X running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS 
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5


799 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 355


  Reply # 1128291 14-Sep-2014 13:45
One person supports this post
Send private message

Technofreak: Solving the poverty problem.  Where did it come from so far as New Zealand is concerned?

Part of the solution is a good rounded education.  Give everyone the tools to get on in life.  It's a bit of give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for life.

I don't think we focus enough on some of the stuff people need to know to get along on life any more.  Life skills and basic budgetary skills are lacking.  It's all very well having the latest IT equipment in the schools but the upcoming generations need to know a bit about the more basic things in life as well.

We are too preoccupied with tertiary education and also training people in areas where there is no demand.  We need more people in the sciences however we seem to have an over supply in sporting qualifications.  There needs to be some mechanism to focus people to the areas where graduates are needed. We need people in jobs that help create wealth.

There needs to be a return to the apprenticeship system with some sort of incentive for business to take on apprentices. We have a shortage of skilled tradesmen in many areas.  Businesses in some cases cannot afford the cost of training apprentices.  Also it appears the education system doesn't recognise the trades as a worthwhile career.  Teachers being university graduates, in many cases see a university education as the only pathway.

A case in point WRT lack of trades people is the number of foreigners Chorus employ. Why aren't New Zealanders doing these jobs?  By the way I'm not suggesting an outfit like Chorus cannot afford to pay to train apprentices.  The question needs to be asked though as to why they have imported tradesmen, when there are plenty of people in New Zealand capable of doing this work.

The other things is we are all happy to have access to cheap imports from overseas, many of the items are made with labour costs much less than here in New Zealand.

Another area of concern is there are more and more paper shufflers in all areas who consume but don't contribute anything towards wealth creation. Plenty of talk and no action.

Take a look here to see what I mean;

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/insulation-batts-scandal-a-rudd-in-the-roof/story-fni0cwl5-1227045576416?nk=b581d6cb47152bce33649689517feda2 




Where did it go wrong, thats easy.
When I was young my dad worked, my mom was home.
There was someone in my home who had the time to teach me how to cook, how to read, arts and crafts. We walked home, we walked with friends, we socialised. We holidayed together.

Now we have children who are becoming parents who never knew this, both of their parents were in work, they have had none of the parenting, home skills passed on to them. Worse parents are often working weekends now too. Their holidays are too often in different times of the year meaning the family never holidays together either.

So now people bitch about the "break down of family values" , how can you have them when the family is never together ?

Real wages in real terms have dropped meaning parent now have to work longer hours to earn the same income as their parents did. More and more people have multiple part time jobs, leaving them even less time with the family.

Businesses say we have higher productivity for higher wages, well productivity HAS increase in real terms since the 80s by 85%, but wages in real terms have fallen in real terms by 25%. However, at the top end incomes have risen in real terms by 200% and more, even though their productivity has not actually changed.

Businesses talk about "The global economy" and yet actively try and prevent consumers accessing that global economy. They "Zone" DVDs , prevent people from subscribing to Netflix etc, hell even printer cartridges are zoned. They try and prevent people from being able to import books, clothes,shoes etc etc from overseas, yet we must may "International prices" for milk and cheese.

The gap between rich and poor is increasing, not only are the poor getting poorer but the wealthy believe they are more and more entitled at the expense of their employees. It is now recognised by economist all around the world that this wage gap harms the economy, harms society.

799 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 355


  Reply # 1128307 14-Sep-2014 13:58
3 people support this post
Send private message

Bobdn: I read a story in the paper yesterday or the other day about a woman who was drinking in a pub while her young children wandered the streets.  Heart breaking.  If she had more money on the benefit she could have paid for a babysitter and enjoyed a guilt-free knees up at the local.  No one should have been put in the position she was in.   


Ahh yes, I read a story, heard a story about a beneficiary.... with the clear intimation that ALL beneficiaries are the same.

So how about this for a read too
http://www.familiescommission.org.nz/news/2010/wealthy-white-and-respected-but-they-beat-their-wives

Here's another one for you
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11302109

Yep, lots of well educated, high earning lawyers, accountants, doctors, business people have been convicted of theft, fraud , violence.

So, why is their no intimation that ALL wealthy people are the same here too.

Oh thats right, the need for moral superiority.

2835 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 479


  Reply # 1128311 14-Sep-2014 14:22
Send private message

sir1963
Where did it go wrong, thats easy.
When I was young my dad worked, my mom was home.
There was someone in my home who had the time to teach me how to cook, how to read, arts and crafts. We walked home, we walked with friends, we socialised. We holidayed together.

Now we have children who are becoming parents who never knew this, both of their parents were in work, they have had none of the parenting, home skills passed on to them. Worse parents are often working weekends now too. Their holidays are too often in different times of the year meaning the family never holidays together either.

So now people bitch about the "break down of family values" , how can you have them when the family is never together ?

Real wages in real terms have dropped meaning parent now have to work longer hours to earn the same income as their parents did. More and more people have multiple part time jobs, leaving them even less time with the family.


You make some good points.

However I don't think any drop in real wages is the total cause of the problem you describe where there is less family time and no one at home to teach life skills.

Today every family has to have two cars, the latest wide screen TV, boat etc.  

Like you my Mum was a home executive, there was only one income.  We didn't have the latest gadgets in fact the first TV we ever had came from the my Grandmothers house after she died, I was at high school at the time.

Yes we walked or road our bikes to school and a lot of places in between.  I was lucky I got given a brand new bike for my 11th or 12th birthday. My younger sisters has to do with refurbished second hand bikes.  My Dad used to often ride about 10 km to work so as Mum had the car for the day when she needed it.

We always lived in the same 3 bedroom house which my parents owned. Our parents made do with one income. Hire purchase was never used if went couldn't afford it we didn't have it. The family car which was bought new in 1961 was 20 years old when it was replaced. We didn't go on holiday every year, we didn't have a lot of the things that are taken for granted today, but we never felt we were disadvantaged.

If many families toned down their spending the problem you raised above could be solved.




Sony Xperia X running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS 
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5


1204 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 245

Subscriber

  Reply # 1128336 14-Sep-2014 15:11
Send private message

nathan:
nunz:
Geektastic:

So my business tax just covers things I could easily obtain in the private sector at less cost then? From a provider of my choice? 


...
Capitalism does need to be reigned in - it is a self destructive cycle of greed and escalation - so ensuring balances such as the max wage in a business is 5-10 times that of the minimum wages ensures the big fish look out for the welfare of the little fish too - their wages are reliant on that.
...





There's a lot that I like here

But 2 that I definitely don't

Death penalty. Don't agree with it myself, state gets it wrong to many times

Capping max wage to 10x minimum wage in an org is silly. You'll get mediocrity. Some executives ready are worth their salary.


nathan:
nunz:
Geektastic:

So my business tax just covers things I could easily obtain in the private sector at less cost then? From a provider of my choice? 


....
Capitalism does need to be reigned in - it is a self destructive cycle of greed and escalation - so ensuring balances such as the max wage in a business is 5-10 times that of the minimum wages ensures the big fish look out for the welfare of the little fish too - their wages are reliant on that.

....



There's a lot that I like here

But 2 that I definitely don't

Death penalty. Don't agree with it myself, state gets it wrong to many times

Capping max wage to 10x minimum wage in an org is silly. You'll get mediocrity. Some executives ready are worth their salary.


I agree the state gets it wrong sometimes - mostly when someone does something corrupt - in which case the person corrupting the system should be convicted of murder and removed from the scene. Most of the time the state gets it right. Maybe death penalty is too harsh but there are clear cut cases were it is very fitting with no doubt of guilt. At the very least life sentence should mean life sentance and hard labour, not sitting on your butt should be the end result. Prisons are not reformatories no matter how much the do gooders claim they are. Most reform comes about through a change of mind of the person inside, not the prison programme itself.

I disagree with the mediocrity claim.  to support your stance you have to believe two things:
1 - Money negates mediocrity
2 - Only the mediocre are under paid.

1 - Time and again we see extremely high paid individuals who are mediocre or worse . Tony Marriott in chch - excellent example. There are a few telecom leaders who I would eye up, not to mention some of the absolute havoc and bollocks that come out of parliament.
If people are doing the job despite the pay, then you wont get mediocrity. Teachers were under paid for years and did it out of passion and there were some darn good ones. mother Teresa was never paid and was definitely not mediocre.
2 - See Mother T example above

Over seas a number of businesses are recognising there is a different way of doing things.  for example, a CEO / Gm's or managers job is not to boss the workers around but to make a way for the workers to do their jobs well. Their job is to cut through red tape, look at the big picture, not the small details, think and plan and strategise. A good CEO / manager is a servant to the workers and the job. That also used to be the job of the PRIME (first ) MINISTER (one who serves) until they got all big headed and egotistical. Management are not above workers. they have a different role to play and are just another part of the business machine.
businesses all over the place are recognising this and as people are promoted (not in an upwards way but by popular acclaim of their skills and suitability for the role) they are still part of the work place, an equal but different to joe average on the floor, or the janitor etc.

There is an argument to be made for encouraging people to educate themselves and that without the incentive of money to 'better' themselves people wouldn't. Why educate if you can get paid the same for sweeping a floor?

Education has elevated itself in an elitist way. Experience and education are both the same coin, just different types of experience. Reward experience. reward loyalty to a company via years of service. Reward endeavour and productivity but dont mistake education or a 'higher' position as being more important than experience and loyalty. A wood worker or plumber or carpenter or builder or road sweeper or police person or park ranger all have different skills. Put a hydraulic jack hammer in the hands of your average CEO and you will have a disaster. give a monkey wrench to your high paid exec and they will flounder.

jo average sweeping the floor is as important to the business as the CEO. If Joe average doesn't sweep the floor, waste  builds up, accidents happen, product gets broken, productivity falls. J Average is just as important to the balance sheet as M Bighshot. Paul the Apostle said it 2k years ago. some parts of the body are more modest and less 'important' than other parts. But can a hand say to a foot, I don't need you? can an eye say to the mouth, i am more important than you?"  to be blunt - where would we be without an anus? Yet in the course of things it is not a part we see as important as our hair do, nail shape, facial hair etc - which in the big picture mean far less than your excretory system.

I'll let you figure out the relationship between that earthly little homily and the business structures :)










nunz

1204 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 245

Subscriber

  Reply # 1128340 14-Sep-2014 15:15
Send private message

Jase2985:
Rikkitic: I haven’t read all the comments but I did sample some. I don’t expect my 2 cents will change anything but here it is anyway: First, I don’t believe in left/right adversarial nonsense, just good ideas and bad ideas. Both sides have some of both. What always gets me about these types of discussions, though, is those who doggedly cling to their ideologies regardless of the consequences. In other words, the notion that children should be left to suffer because their parents are stupid or selfish or immoral or otherwise not of an acceptable standard. Enlightened self-interest says that society has to step in for its own protection regardless of whose fault it is. The alternative is to sit on your high horse claiming the moral high ground while the world crumbles around you as people raised without any values burgle your home, assault you on the street and do no productive work. I would far rather invest in turning these people around while they are still kids than building prisons for them all. And maybe the first generation freed from the hopelessness cycle might even choose to have fewer children. That seems to work elsewhere.


The kids shouldn't be made to suffer peroid, but the problem is throwing more money at the parents (because the government cant give the kids the money) doesn't necessarily help the children.

we need to help change the ideology to put the kids first in those at risk faimiles.

that to me is the biggest problem at the moment. the kids are not considered to be a priority


Provide school lunches for all children - works overseas, is cost effective, provides employment and ensure a healthy educated group of kids coming through. The cost savings on health and a few other areas as well as the increased employment, food sales etc all hlep offset the costs.





nunz

4055 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 710

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1128367 14-Sep-2014 15:44
2 people support this post
Send private message

Technofreak: Today every family has to have two cars


Growing up in the 80s my parents had two cars. I know hardly anyone with kids who can afford more than one car these days.


, the latest wide screen TV, boat etc.  


My TV cost me the equivalent of 2.5 weeks rent, whereas 20 years ago a decent TV would have cost the equivalent of 10 weeks rent. The problem is that luxuries are getting cheaper while essentials are getting more and more expensive. 

799 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 355


  Reply # 1128375 14-Sep-2014 16:01
Send private message

Technofreak: sir1963
Where did it go wrong, thats easy.
When I was young my dad worked, my mom was home.
There was someone in my home who had the time to teach me how to cook, how to read, arts and crafts. We walked home, we walked with friends, we socialised. We holidayed together.

Now we have children who are becoming parents who never knew this, both of their parents were in work, they have had none of the parenting, home skills passed on to them. Worse parents are often working weekends now too. Their holidays are too often in different times of the year meaning the family never holidays together either.

So now people bitch about the "break down of family values" , how can you have them when the family is never together ?

Real wages in real terms have dropped meaning parent now have to work longer hours to earn the same income as their parents did. More and more people have multiple part time jobs, leaving them even less time with the family.


You make some good points.

However I don't think any drop in real wages is the total cause of the problem you describe where there is less family time and no one at home to teach life skills.

Today every family has to have two cars, the latest wide screen TV, boat etc.  

Like you my Mum was a home executive, there was only one income.  We didn't have the latest gadgets in fact the first TV we ever had came from the my Grandmothers house after she died, I was at high school at the time.

Yes we walked or road our bikes to school and a lot of places in between.  I was lucky I got given a brand new bike for my 11th or 12th birthday. My younger sisters has to do with refurbished second hand bikes.  My Dad used to often ride about 10 km to work so as Mum had the car for the day when she needed it.

We always lived in the same 3 bedroom house which my parents owned. Our parents made do with one income. Hire purchase was never used if went couldn't afford it we didn't have it. The family car which was bought new in 1961 was 20 years old when it was replaced. We didn't go on holiday every year, we didn't have a lot of the things that are taken for granted today, but we never felt we were disadvantaged.

If many families toned down their spending the problem you raised above could be solved.



I am presuming that "Family" means those earning over $100,000
But lets look at it. Both parents need to get to work, and 99.9% won't be working the same hours at the same place, especially those who hold down 2-3 part time jobs. So owning 2 sub $1000 cars is not unrealistic. None of them would own a boat.

In your "glory times" they probably got a state advances loan at 3% fixed, they got $7/week (when $7 was good money) for each child they had, milk and bread cost a lot less in real terms, so did housing , schooling, and power, people could afford to live on one wage and they were better off than families today, I know mine did and so were many families I know.

The "new car" lots of people are buying is 20 years old when they buy it.

And many have NEVER been on holiday with their kids, they can't afford it.

"Toned down their spending"..... ROTFLMAO, they don't go to the Doctor because they can not afford it, Dentist.... never been side they left school, School uniforms are 2nd hand, so are shoes, etc etc.



1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
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:



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.