There has been a pretty dramatic outcry following Vodafone’s iPhone announcement yesterday, and the Vodafone-bashing appears to be becoming a bit of a bandwagon with people suggesting protests, boycotts and so on.

I was too disappointed with the plans, not because comparitively they are genuine “rip offs”, but because there is no entry-level option whatsoever for people like me who really just want to cross-breed an iPod Touch and a cell phone without ruling out the possibility of wanting to use the data features occasionally.

People are complaining that 250MB is not enough for an $80 per month plan because it doesn’t sound like much, but in cell phone terms it should be plenty for anyone who utilises a wifi network whenever possible instead of using the mobile data.

I would have liked to have seen a plan with 100MB of data or less, with the 16GB phone at $699 purchase price plus a contract of $30-40 per month. Then I would’ve been on board.

Who knew? Apparently Kiwi researchers have “found” that “New Zealanders’ intake of sugar is not associated with being overweight or obese”.

Sigh.

Last I checked, sugar had calories. Last I checked, unexpended calories caused weight gain. This is the only thing the study should be trying to disprove, but instead the claim in the press release is that the “current intake of total sugars was actually significantly lower amongst obese children, compared to normal-weight children.” I’m not sure how this proves anything. Study the science, guys, don’t look for trends. Taking a single-factor statistic approach in what should be a purely scientific study is completely bizarre.

Oh, wait - “funded by the New Zealand Sugar Company Limited”. Of course. The world makes sense again.

The Herald has a story today talking about the new proposed Public Health Bill and its plan to ban the advertising of “unhealthy” food on television in yet another effort to combat obesity.

What a lot of crap.

For starters, the focus (as usual) appears to be on children, and I don’t think I’ve ever met a kid who goes shopping for his or her own food. That’s right - once again someone is calling for a ban of something to benefit children, and once again the actual responsibility lies with parents.

I had written a long rant about sports nutrition and that teaching people about it would help to encourage better habits; but let’s forget that. I’d rather summerise by saying that we should stop banning everything and start encouraging some self responsibility FFS.

(Or, have I got it wrong… maybe Wii Fit is the real answer?)

Gameplanet’s editor Daniel Cheer spoke to Tim Neale, presenter for “The Wire” on 95bFM today, in regards to Grand Theft Auto IV and censorship issues. Tim also interviewed Gordon Copeland, an independent Member of Parliament, who is calling for the game to be banned outright.

Copeland’s poor arguments for his cause will likely be enjoyed by gamers, as he advises multiple times that the game has “no redeeming features” and suggests that it is a simulator for learning how to kill in a similar way that a simulator trains astronauts to go into space.

Interestingly he doesn’t call for any other R18 material to be banned, despite his claims that children getting their hands on the game are his primary concern and there is certainly a lot of material out there which is inappropriate for children. Oh, and he also calls the game “Grand Auto Theft Number 4″ at one point.

You can listen to both interviews over at Gameplanet.

The Herald has a story today saying that the Public Health Association wants the Government to make fruits and vegetables GST-free.

I’ve often questioned why it is so much cheaper for me to buy processed sugar/fat snacks than it is to buy vegetables, so I think this is a great idea. The question no doubt will be weather or not the government will recoup its costs down the track… with the theory being that a healthier population will need less healthcare.

I suspect that in reality the change would primarily make the goods cheaper for existing consumers rather than causing a massive market shift - a little over $2 off a $20 purchase isn’t exactly the deal of the century, and packaged snacks are still likely to be cheaper - but it would be a positive step and I’d like to see it happen.