Test your sporting knowledge with our weekly quiz on current sports events. Read...

Sports Interactive boss Miles Jacobson reveals the reasons for cancelling FM25, and what fans can expect from the new game. Read...

Harper Moyski, 10, and Fletcher Merkel, 8, were praying when they were gunned down at school on Wednesday. Read...

The pop star and the sports star are to tie the knot and perhaps they should do it right here in Aotearoa. Read...

How do you make something compelling if you already know what happens? Sky`s new football documentary avoids the pitfalls that hold other sports docos back. Read...

The best way to watch Monday Night Football without paying for a full TV package or ESPN subscription could be short-lived if Disney gets its way. Disney is suing Sling TV over its Day Passes, which provide access to Sling’s Orange bundle (including Disney-owned ESPN and more than 30 other channels) for $5, with weekend and weeklong passes also available for $10 and $15 respectively. By comparison, a full month of Sling Orange costs $46, and ESPN’s new streaming service costs $30 per month on its own. With Day Passes, Sling is solving a real problem with sports streaming: Even if you’re only interested in a single game, you must pay for an entire month of service. Programmers like Disney should be embracing this approach to reach audiences who otherwise might not pay anything, but they’re too short-sighted to realize it. Why Sling is right While we all want more flexible options, new standalone offerings from the likes of Fox and Disney’s ESPN are insufficient. Both companies have intentionally set prices high—$30 per month for ESPN, $20 per month for Fox One—hoping to prolong the pay TV model that’s collapsing under them. The appeal will likely be limited. We’ve already seen this play out with regional sports networks, most of which now offer their own standalone services in the $20 to $30 per month range. Despite offering more local team games than ESPN and Fox combined, these offerings aren’t gaining much traction because they’re just too expensive. The networks themselves have admitted it. Meanwhile, younger viewers are tuning out. According to Front Office Sports, the average primetime NFL viewer is 62.5 years old, and ESPN chairman Jimmy Pitaro acknowledged that executives at the company worry about resonating with young audiences. A recent survey of sports executives found that 65 percent are concerned about maintaining live sports’ relevance. So here’s a wild idea: Maybe make it easier for people to get in the door. Let them buy access to a game, or a weekend, or a week, and maybe they’ll come back for more. If not, at least they’ll have paid something instead of turning back to piracy. The old TV business model is falling apart regardless, so now is the time to try new things. Disney: Sling didn’t ask us As we’re learning now, Disney isn’t the one willing to experiment. While Sling previously indicated that it briefed its programming partners on the Day Passes, it never explicitly said that they were on board. Disney, meanwhile, says it didn’t even get the memo. “Sling TV’s new offerings, which they made available without our knowledge or consent, violate the terms of our existing license agreement,” the company said in a statement to media outlets. It wants the court to make Sling remove Disney’s channels from the Day Passes. Keep in mind that in the pay TV world, distributors like Sling typically pay a per-month, per-subscriber “carriage fee” to programmers like Disney in exchange for their channels. The per-subscriber fee for ESPN alone was reportedly around $10 per month a couple of years ago, and that cost gets passed onto customers. The fact that Sling launched its day passes without Disney’s blessing raises some knotty questions, like: How much does Sling pay Disney when someone only signs up for a day? Is it counting per-subscriber carriage fees in a different way, or eating the month’s fee in hopes that day pass holders become regular subscribers? Were any other programmers on board with the idea, or was this all just a gambit to bring them to the bargaining table? Sling’s PR department didn’t answer those questions, but said it plans to fight the lawsuit, which it called meritless. “We will vigorously defend our right to bring customers a viewing experience that fits their lives, on their schedule and on their terms,” the company said. A long history of short-sightedness Unfortunately, this kind of hardball hasn’t ended well for TV distributors in the past. Back in 2015, Verizon tried to offer a flexible TV package for Fios customers, with a base channel lineup and a selection of “Channel Packs” for things like sports and news. Disney sued over it, and while Verizon initially claimed it was within its rights, it eventually watered down the offering and settled the lawsuit. Then, in 2020, T-Mobile tried to launch a new TV service with two distinct packages—one with broadcast, news, and sports channels, and one focused on entertainment. Programmers flipped out, claiming that T-Mobile tricked them into splitting up their channels, and T-Mobile wound up exiting the TV business entirely. With the bottom dropping out on the pay TV business, programmers have only now started embracing a modicum of flexibility, with companies like DirecTV offering “Genre Packs” for less than a typical pay TV package. But even that only happened because DirecTV was wiling to wage a PR war against Disney and subject its customers to extended blackouts. These kinds of changes shouldn’t have taken a decade, and deep down, programmers know it. They’ve quietly bemoaned the destruction of the pay TV bundle, yet they did nothing to avert it. With day passes, programmers like Disney have another chance to innovate on a tired business model and reach folks who might not otherwise even pay for their services. While it’s no surprise that they’re against it, hopefully Sling can force the issue. Sign up for Jared’s Cord Cutter Weekly newsletter to get more streaming TV insights every Friday. Read...

One of Europe’s “big five” football leagues will bring expertise – and big-ticket games – to Queensland under a deal signed with the state. Read...

Matildas and Chelsea football star Sam Kerr speaks to Wide World of Sports about her newly unveiled Player Edition Nike Mercurial boots and the journey she took to get there. Read...

A Wellington family are counting the cost of Kitchen Things’ receivership after being left with a stalled kitchen renovation and $16,000 out of pocket in yet-to-be-delivered appliances.  Customer Damion, who didn’t want his last name used, told the Herald they were in the final stages of a full house renovation, which was now in “limbo”.  “It’s the family kitchen we’ve always wanted but never had with smaller houses.  “Unfortunately we’re now in the final stages with some added stress that we didn’t need.”  The family of five, and a dog, have been renting a small two-bedroom unit down the road for the duration of the build.  “We can’t plan a move-in date as we don’t have appliances,” Damion said.  “Any delays will simply add more cost. And we’re not in a position to buy more appliances. That pot is empty for now.”  Damion said he paid the final instalment, about 50%, to Kitchen Things on the Friday before they went into receivership the following week.  “I have $16,000 of appliances that should be on their way to me but clearly are not,” he said.  “The last I heard [from Kitchen Things] on the Friday was ‘we’ll get this organised’ and haven’t heard anything since.”  Kitchen Things in Morrow St, Newmarket, is one of 12 stores currently closed after going into receivership. Photo / Jason Dorday  Damion said the day after Kitchen Things went into receivership, he was emailed by receivers at Grant Thornton after being identified as a potential customer and asked to reply with confirmation and proof of purchase.  He said he replied but has since received no response from the firm.  “I’m just incredibly disappointed at the lack of communication and the stress of not knowing what’s going to happen.  “Unfortunately, they’ve just left everybody absolutely in the dark.”  The Herald has contacted Grant Thornton for comment.  Consumer NZ said anyone who paid by debit or credit card should contact their bank immediately to get a chargeback.  Shattered dreams  Another couple who contacted the Herald said they were doing a kitchen renovation and had spent over $14,000 on appliances from Kitchen Things.  They paid the remaining 50% balance on a Monday, two days before Kitchen Things went into receivership, and received an email confirmation saying their items would be delivered that Friday.  “The goods are in location in their business and we’ve got a kitchen without any appliances,” the couple said.  “Not only that, we have a daughter living with us who had a stroke and needs medication stored in a fridge and [are] relying on a beer fridge for a family of three adults.  “The stress on our family is huge. As a couple in our sixties, we have never had a new kitchen and had borrowed money to make this happen and now find our dreams shattered.”  ‘Loss is considerable’  Ian Burkett told the Herald he and his wife had paid $6898 for two Bosch appliances from Kitchen Things.  The pair, in their 70s and who own a small pet shop, were waiting for their appliances to be delivered two days before Kitchen Things went into receivership, but they never came.  “This is the first time we were going to have a brand new stove and it would be our first-ever dishwasher,” Burkett said.  He said he was “cursing” himself as originally they were to be delivered on August 1, but they had to postpone.  Burkett said now they haven’t got an oven at all and they have a big hole where the dishwasher should be.  “Business is so bad, we’re basically surviving on our pensions. A loss of $6898 is considerable.  “If we don’t get our money back, we’re going to have to go and buy some cheap stove that we can barely find the money for as opposed to something we really wanted.”  Cameron Smith is an Auckland-based business reporter. He joined the Herald in 2015 and has covered business and sports. He reports on topics su... Read...

You probably already know that a password like 123456 is bad. It’s so simple and predictable that even other humans can easily guess it. But do you know all the other passwords that are just as weak? AI search analytics firm Peec AI recently looked at a small portion of stolen password data, dating from 2019 until now. And while its analysis yielded similar results to what security researchers have already uncovered from far larger amounts of data, the findings proved the point: people really suck at creating their own passwords. In Peec AI’s slim data set of about 100 million unique passwords, common themes we’ve seen time and time again popped up once more: Simple number strings: 123456 is always a top weak password—about 6.6 million in this data slice. Trailing behind is 123456789 at 2.2 million, with 111111 coming in at almost one million. Easily guessed: Password, qwerty, and abc123 all came close to one million uses each. Common names: English language speakers leaned most on familiar names, with this data’s top 10 coming in as Michael, Daniel, Ashley, Jessica, Charlie, Jordan, Michelle, Thomas, Nicole, and Andrew. Four-digit years: 2013, 2010, and 1986 appeared the most frequently, with years in the 1980 range the most popular. Millennials likely haven’t changed old, outdated habits of adding a memorable number string to strengthen passwords. Sports: People love football, baseball, and soccer. Soccer teams in particular get tapped for password duty: Liverpool, Chelsea, and Barcelona cropped up as often as 70,000 times. Band names: Apparently this set of hacked accounts had a lot of blink-182 fans (84,000!). People’s tastes run the gamut, though, because Justin Bieber made this particular list. Fictional characters: DC fans have strong representation in this data set, with Superman appearing 86,900 times. Batman came in second with over 50,000 uses. Seasons: Everyone’s favorite time of year is apparently summer. This chart shows how a fast consumer-grade PC could crack a password. Dedicated hackers can choose to devote more resources to their efforts.Hive Systems Guessable and known passwords can be cracked fast by a computer, sometimes instantly if they’re particularly weak—and pretty much everything in the list above is. And usually, most people who use 123456 or michael will reuse passwords, which leaves them vulnerable to credential stuffing attacks, too. (That is, when an attacker will try your leaked or stolen username and password on other services.) Security experts (and yours truly) recommend unique, random passwords for this reason. Ideally, you want a mix of lowercase and uppercase letters, numbers, and special characters. Switch to this style of password, and even a shorter eight-character one theoretically would force a hacker to spend years attempting to crack it. Keeping track of unique strong passwords for dozens (or hundreds) of accounts is difficult, which is why a password manager comes in clutch. Different types exist, ranging from the simple but convenient services built into Google and Apple’s ecosystems, cloud-based providers like Dashlane and Bitwarden, and local apps that store an encrypted vault with all your details to a single device. A password manager may sound less secure to some ears, but trust me—it’s a heck of a lot more secure than guessable words, phrases, or number strings as passwords. Even if they’re not common ones or the exact types found on this list, you’re still scraping the bottom of the security barrel. Read...