26 February, 2009

Living frugally

Elser fed two people for a week on $50, the amount she would normally spend on a "couple of nights' take-away food"....
...How did it go?
I bought cheaper brands of everything, used leftovers, wasted nothing, plundered the cupboards and garden, and spent more time than I have shopping around. We didn't starve, in fact we ate reasonably well, but it was very tight. If I replaced the stores we would be over budget.
New-season apples and end-of-season plums are about $1 each; why is in-season fruit so expensive? Why are snack foods high in salt and sugar cheaper than carrots?
Household expenditure for a couple with two dependent children averages $218.30 a week. There is not a lot leeway in that for meat, milk or cheese, let alone chickpeas and rice. Hopefully, the two children like water, bruised fruit and homegrown silverbeet.

Read the whole article here.

Now this household is no stranger to living frugally and does a better job than the writer of this column. Basically because we have had more practice at it.

Still it does raise some interesting questions:

Why are snack foods, of the salt and fat kind cheaper than carrots?
Why is in season produce not necessarily cheaper than stored, imported or, horror of horrors, processed?
Why have the cheaper 'house' brands been vanishing off the shelves? -not because they are out of stock either.
Why is flour suddenly more expensive, weight for weight, than sugar? You can substitute sugar but not flour.
Where has all the cheap meat gone? There are whole cuts like belly flap and tongue that just are not in the butchers, even lamb's fry and pig's heads are hard to find. It can't all be going into cat food. Have you seen the price of soup bones lately? or neck chops, or bacon bones?

I do feel sorry for vegetable growers, every man and his dog round here now has a veggie patch of some description. Some have gone to the extent of filling what were formally flower beds with veggies as well.

There could well be whole families turning vegan this year and not for any querky idologal reasons either.

23 February, 2009

Copywipes - The black out begins

Yes, this white cat thinks she could do better than the idiots who wrote this.

Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers
“(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.
“(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.
“92B Internet service provider liability if user infringes copyright
“(1) This section applies if a person (A) infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of an Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.
“(2) Merely because A uses the Internet services of the Internet service provider in infringing the copyright, the Internet service provider, without more,—
“(a) does not infringe the copyright in the work:
“(b) must not be taken to have authorised A’s infringement of copyright in the work:
“(c) subject to subsection (3), must not be subject to any civil remedy or criminal sanction.
“(3) However, nothing in this section limits the right of the copyright owner to injunctive relief in relation to A’s infringement or any infringement by the Internet service provider.
“(4) In subsections (1) and (2), Internet services means the services referred to in the definition of Internet service provider in section 2(1).
“92C Internet service provider liability for storing infringing material
“(1) This section applies if—
“(a) an Internet service provider stores material provided by a user of the service; and
“(b) the material infringes copyright in a work (other than as a result of any modification by the Internet service provider).
“(2) The Internet service provider does not infringe copyright in the work by storing the material unless—
“(a) the Internet service provider—
“(i) knows or has reason to believe that the material infringes copyright in the work; and
“(ii) does not, as soon as possible after becoming aware of the infringing material, delete the material or prevent access to it; or
“(b) the user of the service who provided the material is acting on behalf of, or at the direction of, the Internet service provider.
“(3) A court, in determining whether, for the purposes of subsection (2), an Internet service provider knows or has reason to believe that material infringes copyright in a work, must take account of all relevant matters, including whether the Internet service provider has received a notice of infringement in relation to the infringement.
“(4) An Internet service provider who deletes a user’s material or prevents access to it because the Internet service provider knows or has reason to believe that it infringes copyright in a work must, as soon as possible, give notice to the user that the material has been deleted or access to it prevented.
“(5) Nothing in this section limits the right of the copyright owner to injunctive relief in relation to a user’s infringement or any infringement by the Internet service provider.
“92D Requirements for notice of infringement
A notice referred to in section 92C(3) must—
“(a) contain the information prescribed by regulations made under this Act; and
“(b) be signed by the copyright owner or the copyright owner’s duly authorised agent.
“92E Internet service provider does not infringe copyright by caching infringing material
“(1) An Internet service provider does not infringe copyright in a work by caching material if the Internet service provider—
“(a) does not modify the material; and
“(b) complies with any conditions imposed by the copyright owner of the material for access to that material; and
“(c) does not interfere with the lawful use of technology to obtain data on the use of the material; and
“(d) updates the material in accordance with reasonable industry practice.
“(2) However, an Internet service provider does infringe copyright in a work by caching material if the Internet service provider does not delete the material or prevent access to it by users as soon as possible after the Internet service provider became aware that—
“(a) the material has been deleted from its original source; or
“(b) access to the material at its original source has been prevented; or
“(c) a court has ordered that the material be deleted from its original source or that access to the material at its original source be prevented.
“(3) Nothing in this section limits the right of the copyright owner to injunctive relief in relation to a user’s infringement or any infringement by the Internet service provider.
“(4) In this section,—
“cache means the storage of material by an Internet service provider that is—
“(a) controlled through an automated process; and
“(b) temporary; and
“(c) for the sole purpose of enabling the Internet service provider to transmit the material more efficiently to other users of the service on their request
“original source means the source from which the Internet service provider copied the material that is cached.”
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122643.html

18 February, 2009

Copywrong Song






If you are wondering about all the blackouts it is in response to section 92A of the copyright act due to be passed into law on 28th February.


It's an over response to illegal downloading, piracy in other words.


You download in breech of copyright and your ISP cuts you off, in theory.


The problem is that not only will it target those downloading music and videos willy nilly but threatens to cut of Internet service to libraries, universities and any place that allows public Internet access.


Anybody who copies a newspaper article onto a group or blog for discussion purposes will also be in breech of this new law. Anybody who has been involved in such discussions knows that just posting a link in seldom enough. The articles get pulled from news sites too fast.


More than one MSN Group found the plug being pulled over copyright breeches. This legislation threatens to do more than that.


There is currently a fine line between freedom of speech and copyright infringement. Section 92A doesn't just clarify it. It tramples right over it an grinds freedom of speech into the mud.

16 February, 2009

Respite Care

If you have never had to try and claim this count yourself lucky.

It seems that the standard form signed by "support carer" aka the duty manager of a very professionally run city council school holiday program at a council owned venue accompanied by the itemised booking invoice and an eftpos receipt is not acceptable. Even when the GST number is on the claim form along with all the contact details.

I guess it is back up to the Sports Centre to try and get an "acceptable" receipt preferable signed by the same duty manager that signed the form.

When was the last time you got a computer printed receipt that was signed?
Not even the doctor routinely does that any more.

I wouldn't be bothering if it wasn't a couple of hundred dollars worth of care that the Ministry of Health wasn't going to be paying out on.

Update:
Here is the real irony.

Another claim for care (different dates) from the same organisation lodged at the same time with the same type of eftpos reciept and invoice has been paid out.

Get your act together Ministry of Health!

10 February, 2009

Ozzie Burns

Or rather his daughter Victoria Burns.

Sadly not something to joke about.

03 February, 2009

What are Progressive Enterprises up to?

That is the company that own Foodtown, Countdown, Woolworths and a couple of other minor supermarket chains.

As I understood it Foodtown and Woolworths were the full service supermarkets with the bigger product range and prices that reflexed that. Higher prices in other words. Competition for New World.

Countdown was the budget edition, direct competition for Pak'n'Save.

Until recently that is.

Locally we have noticed something odd with the prices at Countdown. First we thought it was inflation, the wet winter and the credit crunch. Then we thought perhaps they were using the recent revamping of the local Countdown (the planning of which sucked by the way) as a excuse to increase prices.

The prices weren't jumping just a few percent however. Things like wafer biscuits when from 99c to $1.29, a 30% price rise. Bread, the cheap stuff, when from $1.09 to $1.19 to $1.45. The cheapest house brand vanished and specials started to look like anything but specials - until we saw the new inflated normal price. Tinned fruit for under a dollar? Not any more.

A chance visit to Foodtown has shed a little light on the mystery. Milk and bread at Foodtown is the same price along with quite a list of other items.

Anybody know what is going on?

I have been absent for a while

It's a side effect of the kids hogging the computer.

All fixed as of tomorrow.

One of the good points of the education system.