Get this - interactive media wizzes over at Thebigspace have come up with a mirror that gives fashion tips as you try on clothes and requests other styles and sizes whilst you change.
A veritable Godsend to shopaholics and bored boyfriends everywhere, the Magic Mirror is due to hit retail stores next month. It works out what clothes suit you from your mirror image, whilst giving you information on the products you are trying on and displaying fashion adverts. Chaps can happily saunter off to HMV or Dixons or whatever, leaving their other half to while away the hours with their very own clothes expert.
Nifty...But can you imagine the lines of over-excited shoppers after they get installed? Womenswear departments everywhere will be under seige (as if Saturday queues weren't nightmare enough), it'll be carnage! And there are downsides to not having your bloke along for the ride...Underware shopping will loose a little of its kick without those shared blushes and smutty giggles, not to mention the added bonus of having a walking wallet...Will we be able to cope when the mirror tells it like it is? "Where have you been for the past decade, woman? Spandex is not your friend" and the dreaded, "Big? Your arse has its own orbit sweetie". Eep...
Thursday, 7 June 2007
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Cash for honours and e-mocracy
Some person/persons within the Labour Party is guilty of handing out peerages in return for much needed dosh...hmm...Who might it be....?
The cash for honours inquiry, Operation Ribble to the fuzz, has been going on for over a year now and so far, nobody's been banged up. Mm, I may be just a little disappointed. Anyway, those pesky journalists over at the Press Association have discovered that Operation Ribble (why do I find that name funny?) is set to cost the taxpayer £1 million smackeroonies...That's quite a bit of money going to the boys in blue to find out whether our trusted leaders really are blase, downright corrupt liars.
Popular opinion has already condemned the party as a whole, well, when I say condemned, nobody's particularly happy to think of such underhand dealings down Whitehall way but, eh, what can you do?
David Blunkett has condemned the Yard's working practices as "theatrical" and close ministerial aides, according to the Torygraph, have suggested the police are leaking their findings...And after a year the public and media don't really have a lot to go on - is this because the Yard are dragging their feet or because the political machinery of Whitehall and party sponsorship is so slippery? Nobody knows...
Investigations continue.
Oh and Davie Dave has been championing the democratic value of e-petitions, with some help from Ken Clarke. The two believe that online petitions should be sincerely pursued in parliament. Yep, that's what the rest of us apathetic, 'floating voter' lot would like to believe. That we can show our support or dislike for serious issues and have the powers that be listen to us.
Downing Street launched an e-petitions area on its website at the end of last year. To what end? In February a massively popular petition against road taxation was ignored. I went to a Hansard debate just after the government set out their response and was horrified to hear e-mocracy joked about by politicians and statisticians. In this day and age when political parties are dramatically failing to convince the public of their worth but the digital age reigns supreme, what's so funny about the idea of virtual voting?
Then I remember the thousands of protesters who have marched through London and elsewhere in the past few years. Demonstrators have braved the fickle British weather to condemn all sorts of government policies, including the management of public services and the decision to go to war. Oh right, I get it - if activists couldn't provoke a change in person, why should online opinion make any difference....
To illustrate a point, the link to the petitions on 10 Downing Street's website has the tag, "Be heard". One of the recently added petitions that greets you on the page is the appeal for webmasters to "Take notice of petitions already on this site".
The cash for honours inquiry, Operation Ribble to the fuzz, has been going on for over a year now and so far, nobody's been banged up. Mm, I may be just a little disappointed. Anyway, those pesky journalists over at the Press Association have discovered that Operation Ribble (why do I find that name funny?) is set to cost the taxpayer £1 million smackeroonies...That's quite a bit of money going to the boys in blue to find out whether our trusted leaders really are blase, downright corrupt liars.
Popular opinion has already condemned the party as a whole, well, when I say condemned, nobody's particularly happy to think of such underhand dealings down Whitehall way but, eh, what can you do?
David Blunkett has condemned the Yard's working practices as "theatrical" and close ministerial aides, according to the Torygraph, have suggested the police are leaking their findings...And after a year the public and media don't really have a lot to go on - is this because the Yard are dragging their feet or because the political machinery of Whitehall and party sponsorship is so slippery? Nobody knows...
Investigations continue.
Oh and Davie Dave has been championing the democratic value of e-petitions, with some help from Ken Clarke. The two believe that online petitions should be sincerely pursued in parliament. Yep, that's what the rest of us apathetic, 'floating voter' lot would like to believe. That we can show our support or dislike for serious issues and have the powers that be listen to us.
Downing Street launched an e-petitions area on its website at the end of last year. To what end? In February a massively popular petition against road taxation was ignored. I went to a Hansard debate just after the government set out their response and was horrified to hear e-mocracy joked about by politicians and statisticians. In this day and age when political parties are dramatically failing to convince the public of their worth but the digital age reigns supreme, what's so funny about the idea of virtual voting?
Then I remember the thousands of protesters who have marched through London and elsewhere in the past few years. Demonstrators have braved the fickle British weather to condemn all sorts of government policies, including the management of public services and the decision to go to war. Oh right, I get it - if activists couldn't provoke a change in person, why should online opinion make any difference....
To illustrate a point, the link to the petitions on 10 Downing Street's website has the tag, "Be heard". One of the recently added petitions that greets you on the page is the appeal for webmasters to "Take notice of petitions already on this site".
Arrr...
Forgot to mention...saw Pirates 3 last week...A brief review is in order.
Well, I sat through it all, ignoring the impulse to walk out after about 45 mins...I just kept telling myself, "Don't worry, there doesn't have to be an engaging, continuous plot. It's got Johnny in it and it looks reeeeally pretty. Relax, its supposed to be silly".
It's a narrative mess. My reaction (after sitting through the credits and watching the coda) was, bizarrely, that films 2 and 3 would make better books than films. I'm sure something's being thrashed out by the franchise master minds at Disney as I write...There were so many coincidental references, both mythical and historical - from the portrayal of the East India Trading Company, the legend of Greek sea nymph Calypso, Davey Jones and the many infamous pirates name dropped throughout the films - that it was just too much detail for a kids movie (obviously Gore and co. are very attached to pirating lore - they just tried to cram a couple of hundred years into three hours). Also, the bouts of serious silliness, like Jack's hallucinations, may have amused the younger audience members but they smacked of filler.
All this muddled nautical mayhem was somehow tolerable because the movie's two major pulls - Sparrow's character and the CGI - delivered. Depp's performance is solid, if a little subdued and the special effects are nothing short of awesome (loved the desert crabs..).
The rest of the cast are passable, though I still have problems taking Knightley and Bloom seriously...they can't be mean, they both look about twelve (well, excluding the copious copping off) - their relationship is given alot more weight in this film, which works, I think.
Despite At World's End patchwork plot it is still an enjoyable flick - what other film can offer such sumptuous shenanigan's on the high seas? If you liked the others Pirates 3 will satisfy and there are lots of tie-ins to 1 and 2 - though be warned, its a decidedly darker affair. The opening scene is particularily uncomfortable. Mind you, if nothing else you get a good ogle at Keira. Arrr!
On a side note, work is due to start, fianlly, on '80s feline favourite, "Thunder, THUNDER, THUNDERCATS!" - woohoo!
Well, I sat through it all, ignoring the impulse to walk out after about 45 mins...I just kept telling myself, "Don't worry, there doesn't have to be an engaging, continuous plot. It's got Johnny in it and it looks reeeeally pretty. Relax, its supposed to be silly".
It's a narrative mess. My reaction (after sitting through the credits and watching the coda) was, bizarrely, that films 2 and 3 would make better books than films. I'm sure something's being thrashed out by the franchise master minds at Disney as I write...There were so many coincidental references, both mythical and historical - from the portrayal of the East India Trading Company, the legend of Greek sea nymph Calypso, Davey Jones and the many infamous pirates name dropped throughout the films - that it was just too much detail for a kids movie (obviously Gore and co. are very attached to pirating lore - they just tried to cram a couple of hundred years into three hours). Also, the bouts of serious silliness, like Jack's hallucinations, may have amused the younger audience members but they smacked of filler.
All this muddled nautical mayhem was somehow tolerable because the movie's two major pulls - Sparrow's character and the CGI - delivered. Depp's performance is solid, if a little subdued and the special effects are nothing short of awesome (loved the desert crabs..).
The rest of the cast are passable, though I still have problems taking Knightley and Bloom seriously...they can't be mean, they both look about twelve (well, excluding the copious copping off) - their relationship is given alot more weight in this film, which works, I think.
Despite At World's End patchwork plot it is still an enjoyable flick - what other film can offer such sumptuous shenanigan's on the high seas? If you liked the others Pirates 3 will satisfy and there are lots of tie-ins to 1 and 2 - though be warned, its a decidedly darker affair. The opening scene is particularily uncomfortable. Mind you, if nothing else you get a good ogle at Keira. Arrr!
On a side note, work is due to start, fianlly, on '80s feline favourite, "Thunder, THUNDER, THUNDERCATS!" - woohoo!
Tuesday, 5 June 2007
Celluloid appeal
Cherie Blair hosted the first of three North American lecture dates last night, speaking about her profession to a 1,600 strong audience in San Jose.
She had stipulated that all questions directed to her after her talk should not raise the Iraq war or her husband's career. None did, however some still had to ask what "QC" stood for and what human rights lawyers actually do. A coherant, informative talk then. Well done, Cherie. Must be all that spin rubbing off....
When asked about Cherie's appeal to an American audience, organiser Chris Di Salvo explained, "I think the movie The Queen was important. People here didn't know who she (Cherie) was until The Queen. And of course Americans really admire Tony Blair".
So Mrs Blair's getting paid around £90,000 on the back of the Oscars (as part of what the Telegraph has dubbed the Blair Rich Project, heh)...? Madness.
She had stipulated that all questions directed to her after her talk should not raise the Iraq war or her husband's career. None did, however some still had to ask what "QC" stood for and what human rights lawyers actually do. A coherant, informative talk then. Well done, Cherie. Must be all that spin rubbing off....
When asked about Cherie's appeal to an American audience, organiser Chris Di Salvo explained, "I think the movie The Queen was important. People here didn't know who she (Cherie) was until The Queen. And of course Americans really admire Tony Blair".
So Mrs Blair's getting paid around £90,000 on the back of the Oscars (as part of what the Telegraph has dubbed the Blair Rich Project, heh)...? Madness.
A spanking new brand
After its unveiling yesterday, popular opinion has likened the 2012 brand logo to an illustration of an intimate carnal act - what filthy minds the British public have, tut tut. Great, with five years to go the new brand is out in the public domain...It's supposed to appeal to the young, hip "internet generation" (who doesn't use the internet?) - mummy and daddy, however, think it looks like some very "vibrant" polygons doing the dirty...
Religious groups are aghast and have drawn similarities between the new logo and the chunky lightning strikes of the Nazi SS insignia. That's too far into the noir I think, mind you sex and death sells...
The logo has not been public for 24 hours and already 11,000 people have petitioned to scrap it. I don't think they're going to get very far but watch this space...
There is a familiarity to those funky jagged lines...it's the kind of design that can be seen on railway bridges all over the capital. The government spent £400,000 on a piece of grafitti so as to be down with the kids. It's a real mixed bag. The outline is almost likable, as is the incorporation of the rings. However the "London" typeface is awful and the colours make me feel a little queasy.
Nevertheless it grows on you...It works with the promo advert, evoking colour, movement and modernity (and vulgarity). But the static logo, despite its attempt at a cool noughties edge, is naff. After such an expensive design process it looks like something from my year 9 art folder or something drawn in Paint, a bright, irreverant doodle. And I'm no Warhol...a load of kindergardeners could do a better job...Or better still, the £400,000 would have been better spent on a load of kindergardeners...
Lord Coe and co. are staunchly behind the logo, gushing over its "innovative" and "edgy" appearance - it's controversial and they're proud of it. Coe, head of the Games organising committee, explained that, "We weren't going to come to you with a dull or dry corporate logo that would appear on a polo shirt and we're all gardening in it a year's time [sic]." I don't understand..Wouldn't he rather it turned up on polo shirts than not...? I'm not sure I understand this marketing strategy...sell to young people only, no gardeners...?
But you have to hand it to creators Wolff Olins: the logo's bright, ballsy and different. And soon it will be everywhere.
Religious groups are aghast and have drawn similarities between the new logo and the chunky lightning strikes of the Nazi SS insignia. That's too far into the noir I think, mind you sex and death sells...
The logo has not been public for 24 hours and already 11,000 people have petitioned to scrap it. I don't think they're going to get very far but watch this space...
There is a familiarity to those funky jagged lines...it's the kind of design that can be seen on railway bridges all over the capital. The government spent £400,000 on a piece of grafitti so as to be down with the kids. It's a real mixed bag. The outline is almost likable, as is the incorporation of the rings. However the "London" typeface is awful and the colours make me feel a little queasy.
Nevertheless it grows on you...It works with the promo advert, evoking colour, movement and modernity (and vulgarity). But the static logo, despite its attempt at a cool noughties edge, is naff. After such an expensive design process it looks like something from my year 9 art folder or something drawn in Paint, a bright, irreverant doodle. And I'm no Warhol...a load of kindergardeners could do a better job...Or better still, the £400,000 would have been better spent on a load of kindergardeners...
Lord Coe and co. are staunchly behind the logo, gushing over its "innovative" and "edgy" appearance - it's controversial and they're proud of it. Coe, head of the Games organising committee, explained that, "We weren't going to come to you with a dull or dry corporate logo that would appear on a polo shirt and we're all gardening in it a year's time [sic]." I don't understand..Wouldn't he rather it turned up on polo shirts than not...? I'm not sure I understand this marketing strategy...sell to young people only, no gardeners...?
But you have to hand it to creators Wolff Olins: the logo's bright, ballsy and different. And soon it will be everywhere.
Monday, 4 June 2007
A reminder
Terrorism is now an everyday word. The practice is not just on our doorstep, it's already ransacked the fridge and crapped on the carpet. I don't mean any disrespect to any of those who've suffered as a result of home-grown terrorists, far from it. I'd like to think that by now, the Great British public have woken up to the reality of religious extremists but I'm not so sure..
The terrorist threat to this country and our cherished Western, capitalist way of life is very real. Yet life goes on, in the face of extremism we hold our heads up and say, "we are not afraid, we will recover, our system works". Oh the system we take for granted (because it works), so much so that many of us can't even be bothered to vote for it anymore...
The government has got its work cut out - trying to balance security measures and civil liberties and the all important "hearts and minds" pitch against British extremism. Our leader in waiting Gordon Brown yesterday stressed the need, "To show people that we [the Labour administration] stand for freedom and democracy and the dignity of the individual".
It is not difficult to appreciate how passionate young Muslims (along with the rest of us) might find it hard to reconcille this rhetoric with personal experience and media frenzy. Free? What about proposed cameras on every street corner and wheelie bin? Democratic? We're going to have a new Prime Minister, er, but we didn't pick him. Dignity? With underfunded heath and old age care and the need for a "respect Czar" to tell us the proper way to behave...(I'm being sensationalist and overly critical, I know. Its one of the perks of living in a capitalist democracy with a free press...I love my right to a good moan)
So, the Government is busy with hearts, minds and more immediately, holding potential murderers and keeping the country safe.
Just as I encounter the word "terrorism/terrorist" everyday in news reports, documentaries or comment peices, likewise do I hear the most ignorant bluster about Islam from the mouths of otherwise intelligent human beings. Many of my contemporaries understand the literal difference between your "average Akmed" and a suicide bomber but still talk about British Muslims as if they are an unknown entity, a caste apart, wierd.
The rest of us apathetic, irrelgious lot must do our bit. Educate your heart and your mind. If you value our way of life, do not continue to stigmatise Britain's Muslim population en masse. Tolerance and cooperation shouldn't be so hard. Extremists are the dangerous minority, lets not alienate the hardworking, tax paying, very British majority.
The terrorist threat to this country and our cherished Western, capitalist way of life is very real. Yet life goes on, in the face of extremism we hold our heads up and say, "we are not afraid, we will recover, our system works". Oh the system we take for granted (because it works), so much so that many of us can't even be bothered to vote for it anymore...
The government has got its work cut out - trying to balance security measures and civil liberties and the all important "hearts and minds" pitch against British extremism. Our leader in waiting Gordon Brown yesterday stressed the need, "To show people that we [the Labour administration] stand for freedom and democracy and the dignity of the individual".
It is not difficult to appreciate how passionate young Muslims (along with the rest of us) might find it hard to reconcille this rhetoric with personal experience and media frenzy. Free? What about proposed cameras on every street corner and wheelie bin? Democratic? We're going to have a new Prime Minister, er, but we didn't pick him. Dignity? With underfunded heath and old age care and the need for a "respect Czar" to tell us the proper way to behave...(I'm being sensationalist and overly critical, I know. Its one of the perks of living in a capitalist democracy with a free press...I love my right to a good moan)
So, the Government is busy with hearts, minds and more immediately, holding potential murderers and keeping the country safe.
Just as I encounter the word "terrorism/terrorist" everyday in news reports, documentaries or comment peices, likewise do I hear the most ignorant bluster about Islam from the mouths of otherwise intelligent human beings. Many of my contemporaries understand the literal difference between your "average Akmed" and a suicide bomber but still talk about British Muslims as if they are an unknown entity, a caste apart, wierd.
The rest of us apathetic, irrelgious lot must do our bit. Educate your heart and your mind. If you value our way of life, do not continue to stigmatise Britain's Muslim population en masse. Tolerance and cooperation shouldn't be so hard. Extremists are the dangerous minority, lets not alienate the hardworking, tax paying, very British majority.
Friday, 1 June 2007
Heavy stuff....
Catholic leaders have kicked up a fuss over abortion and put pressure on pro-choice Catholics to reconsider their views, or risk being denied the sacraments. Of course, Catholic Cardinals would never bully and threaten their flock, but this is a definate prod - support abortion and you forfeit Communion and your ritual link with God.
The leader of Scotland's Catholics, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, went on to urge the Scotish health service stop practicing abortion, that medical schools discourage it and that Westminster overturn abortion law (fat chance there mate).
He called abortion a "social evil" and an "unspeakable crime". He likened the abortion rate in Scotland to, "two Dunblane massacres a day" (roughly 35 unborn fetus's are aborted every day in Scotland).
I respect the traditional Catholic view of every human life as sacred. Medical professionals have the same ethos, yet do not view unborn clumps of disorganised cells as living human beings. They are potential lives.
As a secular young women, sexually active and pro-choice, I'm in no position to comment on Catholic doctrine but O'Brien's shock rhetoric and comparisons offend me none-the-less.
What does an aging male ecclesiastic know of being a pregnant women? He paints a picture of thoughtless girls having abortions willy nilly, because they can. I have friends who've undergone one, one for health reasons, the rest because of circumstance. None of them took their choice lightly, part of them died with their unborn child.
The idea of having one makes me feel very scared and sick but should it come to it, I would. Right now I could not give any child of mine the support, stability and complete love it deserves. I do not appreciate being told that waiting until I can provide these things, should it involve having an abortion, would be an "evil", "unspeakable crime".
Catholics are not being chastised for having abortions themselves but for tolerating the choices of others, who for whatever reason, want the proceedure.The Catholic Church, despite recent forays into liberal thought (contraception might not be the devils work after all), now appears as unbending as ever, in fact making a point of damning worshipers and sympathisers. How very Christian...
The leader of Scotland's Catholics, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, went on to urge the Scotish health service stop practicing abortion, that medical schools discourage it and that Westminster overturn abortion law (fat chance there mate).
He called abortion a "social evil" and an "unspeakable crime". He likened the abortion rate in Scotland to, "two Dunblane massacres a day" (roughly 35 unborn fetus's are aborted every day in Scotland).
I respect the traditional Catholic view of every human life as sacred. Medical professionals have the same ethos, yet do not view unborn clumps of disorganised cells as living human beings. They are potential lives.
As a secular young women, sexually active and pro-choice, I'm in no position to comment on Catholic doctrine but O'Brien's shock rhetoric and comparisons offend me none-the-less.
What does an aging male ecclesiastic know of being a pregnant women? He paints a picture of thoughtless girls having abortions willy nilly, because they can. I have friends who've undergone one, one for health reasons, the rest because of circumstance. None of them took their choice lightly, part of them died with their unborn child.
The idea of having one makes me feel very scared and sick but should it come to it, I would. Right now I could not give any child of mine the support, stability and complete love it deserves. I do not appreciate being told that waiting until I can provide these things, should it involve having an abortion, would be an "evil", "unspeakable crime".
Catholics are not being chastised for having abortions themselves but for tolerating the choices of others, who for whatever reason, want the proceedure.The Catholic Church, despite recent forays into liberal thought (contraception might not be the devils work after all), now appears as unbending as ever, in fact making a point of damning worshipers and sympathisers. How very Christian...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
