There's an extent to which Eurovision makes no sense at all. The rules are largely there for cat wrangling purposes. The votes are calculated based on a weird mix of maths, politics and name-dropping.
I have to say, though, Eurovision 2011 was something to look at. I want to know who was the projection/lighting designer. Did each country have their own, or did the host country provide the design like they provided the space?
I lost count of the amount of times I found myself ignoring whoever was on the stage in order to watch what was going on behind them. My favourite backgrounds would have to have been Ireland, Switzerland and Serbia. Least favourite was definitely Sweden. That was also my least favourite song/performance. The entire thing was all noise and nothing else. I have no idea why all those countries kept giving them points - they ended up in the top three, while a lovely song like Switzerland's came last. I guess not enough people felt they had to stay on Switzerland's good side...
Now, I say my favourite backgrounds were those for Ireland, Switzerland and Serbia, but the hands-down best background was one that wasn't designed at all. Ukraine's Sand Art was just fantastic. I started to get the feeling that the song was there to highlight the art, rather than the other way around.
This is the second year in a row Serbia has delivered a blond with a pixie-cut, and for the second year in a row it was almost impossible to not like the performance. It was definitely one of my favourites, and I can't believe it didn't do better in the rankings.
I spent the last half-hour of the show yelling at the TV screen: "Vote for Serbia! And Switzerland! And Iceland! There's no way Greece was better than Bosnia-Herzegovina! Stop voting for Sweden! No, really, stop voting for them, they were terrible!"
It didn't influence the outcome, of course. I also spent a great deal of time shouting "vote for us!" ("us" being Estonia), only to then shout "no, vote for Switzerland, they were so much better than us!"
Ah, but no one listened.
Of course, some of the better acts (like Norway) didn't even make it through to the finals, which just goes to prove that the European voting public and/or judging panels have questionable taste.
For my money, the top five acts were Serbia (English version), Iceland, Italy, Denmark and Ukraine... ah, but I should say that Ukraine is there by virtue of the sand art, rather than the song.
I also thought Ireland or Denmark would have won - they just seemed like the kind of acts that would win Eurovision (in spite of the haircuts).
But, hey, what do I know. You can't predict Eurovision. It's a strange game.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Sign of the Times
It's a sign of the timesI hate that song, but often find it stuck in my head. It's one of those stupid pandering-to-daft-and-overly-romantic-teenage-girlies songs that was so common in the 50s and 60s. "I know you're bound to propose to me at any moment now, even though you act like a jerk and treat me like I don't matter, because I can just feel it. I'm so emotionally caught up in you that I just know you feel the same way about me even though you are carefully disguising it as extreme indifference."
That my love for you is getting so much stronger
It's a sign of the times
And I know that I won't have to wait much longer
Ugh.
Anyway, it wasn't actually my intention to write about that song (curse it's catchy tune!) but rather sign writing.
I briefly worked as a sign writer's assistant while studying for my graduate diploma, and every now and then I miss it.
Strange, really, considering I wasn't any good at it. Turns out that a lack of attention to detail, poor time management skills and limited manual dexterity do not make for being a good sign writer.
My boss (a fine man - one of my favourite people in the world, but so darn eccentric he makes me look normal), valiantly put up with me for the three months he said he would, but made it perfectly clear sign writing was not the job for me. He rarely said it directly, of course, but would often look at me and say "You'll make a fine librarian." It took a while for me to work out he actually was saying "give up your day job", but then I've never been the sharpest pencil in the draw.
I love being a librarian, but every now and then I'll look at a sign and remember what it was like to be behind those things - surrounded by fonts and designs, with the smell of all sorts of different things in the air, feeling the sense of achievement that comes from making something with my hands...
Sure, my spacial awareness leaves something to be desired, and my ability to count isn't good enough to compensate for it. Okay, I have about as much control over my hands as apes have over their feet. And I will grant that my inability to keep track of time is something of an issue in an industry where you bill people according to how much time you've spent on their job.
But on the other hand, I never once cut myself. I consider that to be something of an achievement, considering I was carrying knives around in my back pocket. And I never once accidentally wrote on my hand with that thing that looks like a pen but is actually a needle. Given the fact that I'm usually the biggest klutz on the face of the earth, I think this proves I have some potential for improvement.
I like to think that, eventually, I could make a somewhat competent sign writer. Plus, I only ever worked with vinyl, and part of me is just itching to do something involving wood or 3D effects. I used to borrow my boss' SignCraft magazines and think about how wonderful it would be to work up to the point of making some of the good signs.
My boss never let me near anything terribly complicated, though. Not even paint. Probably because I usually stuffed it up, which was kind of expensive.
A girl can dream, though, can't she?
Friday, May 6, 2011
Google Ads
This has happened to me a few times, now:
I'll do a Google search for something, click on a link and get redirected to a completely different page - a commercial page that has absolutely nothing to do with my search (usually trying to sell me cars, or some such), and with something about "jump" in the URL.
When I go back to Google and click on the link again, I get straight through to the page I wanted.
What's going on here? Has Google finally decided that shoving ads and sponsored pages in the middle of your search results and at random intervals in the pages you read isn't good enough, and now they're just going to take you to whatever commercial page they feel like instead of the page you've chosen?
If so, then why aren't they following the usual pattern of choosing "recommended sites" that fit the topics I'm searching for? Sending me to a page about cars when I was looking for "language levels" is sloppy. It's so far away from what I was looking for that I'm likely to notice immediately and go back to my search without being distracted by it.
Also, taking me to sites when I haven't clicked on them is evil. So if this is a Google thing, then they've clearly decided to completely abandon their "don't be evil" mantra.
Which makes me think that it might not be Google. Not because I don't think Google would have turned evil, but rather because I think they would have been less obvious about it.
So who is doing this, then? How are they jumping between my search screen and the page I want to see? How can I make them stop?
I'll do a Google search for something, click on a link and get redirected to a completely different page - a commercial page that has absolutely nothing to do with my search (usually trying to sell me cars, or some such), and with something about "jump" in the URL.
When I go back to Google and click on the link again, I get straight through to the page I wanted.
What's going on here? Has Google finally decided that shoving ads and sponsored pages in the middle of your search results and at random intervals in the pages you read isn't good enough, and now they're just going to take you to whatever commercial page they feel like instead of the page you've chosen?
If so, then why aren't they following the usual pattern of choosing "recommended sites" that fit the topics I'm searching for? Sending me to a page about cars when I was looking for "language levels" is sloppy. It's so far away from what I was looking for that I'm likely to notice immediately and go back to my search without being distracted by it.
Also, taking me to sites when I haven't clicked on them is evil. So if this is a Google thing, then they've clearly decided to completely abandon their "don't be evil" mantra.
Which makes me think that it might not be Google. Not because I don't think Google would have turned evil, but rather because I think they would have been less obvious about it.
So who is doing this, then? How are they jumping between my search screen and the page I want to see? How can I make them stop?
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Plain Dress
One of my favourite books of all times is Jane Eyre by Currer Bell*. In it, the lead character often describes herself as dressing in "Quaker-like" clothes. This was sketchily outlined as being really plain, unfashionable and only remarkable for how boring they were.
This was, until I recently decided to read a bit about them, one of my few exposures to the concept of the Quakers. They apparently had a "style" - Jane Eyre said so, because she said her clothes were in the Quaker style. And, as I have been reading, they really did have a "style", of sorts. For a while, at any rate. It was a style that wasn't unique to them, though. At least, not in the basic concept: Plain Dress.
Plain Dress is a funny concept. It's a very common expectation among a number of religions and denominations, but people eventually and inevitably get it wrong.
When Plain Dress is first adopted by a group (be they Quakers, Mennonites, Hasidic Jews or Muslims) the idea is to dress modestly. To eschew the latest fashions and instead wear clothes that are simple, practical and humble. People who dress plainly do not go in for the latest frilly collars. Indeed, their collars are not frilly at all. They do not go in for bright, attention grabbing colours. They do not go in for clothes that are made of some material that looks good, but doesn't stand up to the test of time.
And most assuredly, the original idea is to eschew clothes that scream "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" After all the idea of Plain Dress is to dress plainly.
When groups like Quakers and the Amish first started dressing like that, they weren't dressing particularly differently from the rest of society. Their clothes were, simply, boring and practical. They also weren't the latest fashions - probably a few seasons out of step.
Somehow, though, most groups that adopt Plain Dress seem to get the wrong end of the stick. Instead of simply being "not in fashion", they stick with the same style of clothing even though it becomes wildly anachronistic. After a while, a style of clothing becomes so out-of-date that it becomes a kind of Fancy Dress, rather than Plain Dress. It becomes a badge of peculiarity, screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" even more loudly than wearing the latest fashions would.
I'm not sure what the reasoning behind that is. How exactly do so many groups go from "let's dress in a boring way so no one will notice us" to "let's dress like we have come from a hundred years in the past"? What strange force of peer pressure causes people to dress identically for hundreds of years, when the original concept was simply to avoid flashy clothes?
The Quakers worked this out a few decades ago. Rufus Jones pointed out in one of his books that it was one of the most sensible things they did: decide to be a bit less "peculiar" in their appearance and remember the point behind a lot of their habits. I wonder, though, if they still go with the concept of Plain Dress, but apply it to modern clothing.
Do they choose to wear pants that fit comfortably and wear well even though they are a bit out of fashion? Do they choose clothes that cover their entire torso? Do they choose to wear outerwear that adequately covers their underwear? Do they choose to wear clothes that are practical and make sense even though no one is selling them at major department stores and they have to go out of their way to shops that specialise in useful clothing?
Okay, maybe I just described my own clothing style. But, if that was what Plain Dress means for the 21st Century, it could be kind of cool, really. Previously, I've just worked on the assumption that my compulsive need to buy clothes that fit comfortably and wear well would doom me to looking like a dork for the rest of my life. Now I can tell myself it's an ideological principle, and feel better about it. "No, I'm not dressed like a boring dork, I'm in Plain Dress".
*Yes, everyone knows Jane Eyre was written by Charlotte Brontë. She wrote it as "Currer Bell". Look at the title page of the good, scholarly copies of the book - it still says "by Currer Bell".
This was, until I recently decided to read a bit about them, one of my few exposures to the concept of the Quakers. They apparently had a "style" - Jane Eyre said so, because she said her clothes were in the Quaker style. And, as I have been reading, they really did have a "style", of sorts. For a while, at any rate. It was a style that wasn't unique to them, though. At least, not in the basic concept: Plain Dress.
Plain Dress is a funny concept. It's a very common expectation among a number of religions and denominations, but people eventually and inevitably get it wrong.
When Plain Dress is first adopted by a group (be they Quakers, Mennonites, Hasidic Jews or Muslims) the idea is to dress modestly. To eschew the latest fashions and instead wear clothes that are simple, practical and humble. People who dress plainly do not go in for the latest frilly collars. Indeed, their collars are not frilly at all. They do not go in for bright, attention grabbing colours. They do not go in for clothes that are made of some material that looks good, but doesn't stand up to the test of time.
And most assuredly, the original idea is to eschew clothes that scream "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" After all the idea of Plain Dress is to dress plainly.
When groups like Quakers and the Amish first started dressing like that, they weren't dressing particularly differently from the rest of society. Their clothes were, simply, boring and practical. They also weren't the latest fashions - probably a few seasons out of step.
Somehow, though, most groups that adopt Plain Dress seem to get the wrong end of the stick. Instead of simply being "not in fashion", they stick with the same style of clothing even though it becomes wildly anachronistic. After a while, a style of clothing becomes so out-of-date that it becomes a kind of Fancy Dress, rather than Plain Dress. It becomes a badge of peculiarity, screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" even more loudly than wearing the latest fashions would.
I'm not sure what the reasoning behind that is. How exactly do so many groups go from "let's dress in a boring way so no one will notice us" to "let's dress like we have come from a hundred years in the past"? What strange force of peer pressure causes people to dress identically for hundreds of years, when the original concept was simply to avoid flashy clothes?
The Quakers worked this out a few decades ago. Rufus Jones pointed out in one of his books that it was one of the most sensible things they did: decide to be a bit less "peculiar" in their appearance and remember the point behind a lot of their habits. I wonder, though, if they still go with the concept of Plain Dress, but apply it to modern clothing.
Do they choose to wear pants that fit comfortably and wear well even though they are a bit out of fashion? Do they choose clothes that cover their entire torso? Do they choose to wear outerwear that adequately covers their underwear? Do they choose to wear clothes that are practical and make sense even though no one is selling them at major department stores and they have to go out of their way to shops that specialise in useful clothing?
Okay, maybe I just described my own clothing style. But, if that was what Plain Dress means for the 21st Century, it could be kind of cool, really. Previously, I've just worked on the assumption that my compulsive need to buy clothes that fit comfortably and wear well would doom me to looking like a dork for the rest of my life. Now I can tell myself it's an ideological principle, and feel better about it. "No, I'm not dressed like a boring dork, I'm in Plain Dress".
*Yes, everyone knows Jane Eyre was written by Charlotte Brontë. She wrote it as "Currer Bell". Look at the title page of the good, scholarly copies of the book - it still says "by Currer Bell".
Out of Sight
I have this interesting thing that happens with my family.
Everyone who has known me for more than five minutes realises my brain works on the out-of-sight-out-of-mind principle. It's why I write messages on the back of my hands and on my mirror (and occasionally other surfaces). It's why I leave things where I'm likely to trip over them. If it isn't directly in front of me, I have great difficulty remembering it ever existed.
I suspect I was one of those kids who failed the Piagettian test with the ball long after they should have worked it out. You know the one: you show a kid a ball, and then roll it behind a couch. Does the kid go looking for the ball, or assume the ball is no longer there?
For many years my filing system consisted of leaving things were I was likely to see them. We will not go into my mother's tendency to move them and then deny ever seeing them. That's a different "thing".
No, my thing at the moment involves people moving things to places where I'll never see them, and still expecting me to remember that they exist.
"Let us shift the pot plants," they say, "to the side of the house where they will have a better ratio of shade to sun." That's okay, I'm fine with that, but for heavens sake don't turn around three weeks later and say "Sharon, why don't you ever water those pot plants?" When do I ever see them? I had originally put them somewhere visible, you have moved them somewhere invisible. The pot plants have ceased to exist.
Yes, in theory I know exactly where the pot plants are. However, without a reminder within visual range, that knowledge remains unaccessed by the active part of my brain.
These are things they know about me. So my only conclusion, regarding this behaviour of theirs, is that they are deliberately messing with my mind.
I don't think that's very nice.
Everyone who has known me for more than five minutes realises my brain works on the out-of-sight-out-of-mind principle. It's why I write messages on the back of my hands and on my mirror (and occasionally other surfaces). It's why I leave things where I'm likely to trip over them. If it isn't directly in front of me, I have great difficulty remembering it ever existed.
I suspect I was one of those kids who failed the Piagettian test with the ball long after they should have worked it out. You know the one: you show a kid a ball, and then roll it behind a couch. Does the kid go looking for the ball, or assume the ball is no longer there?
For many years my filing system consisted of leaving things were I was likely to see them. We will not go into my mother's tendency to move them and then deny ever seeing them. That's a different "thing".
No, my thing at the moment involves people moving things to places where I'll never see them, and still expecting me to remember that they exist.
"Let us shift the pot plants," they say, "to the side of the house where they will have a better ratio of shade to sun." That's okay, I'm fine with that, but for heavens sake don't turn around three weeks later and say "Sharon, why don't you ever water those pot plants?" When do I ever see them? I had originally put them somewhere visible, you have moved them somewhere invisible. The pot plants have ceased to exist.
Yes, in theory I know exactly where the pot plants are. However, without a reminder within visual range, that knowledge remains unaccessed by the active part of my brain.
These are things they know about me. So my only conclusion, regarding this behaviour of theirs, is that they are deliberately messing with my mind.
I don't think that's very nice.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Tights are not pants
I would just like to remind people that tights are not pants. Particularly when they are not opaque.
If you can see skin-tone through the fibres of the tights, then you should probably consider wearing them as underwear, rather than assuming they will adequately cover your underwear. Especially if you expect to be walking up stairs.
If you can see skin-tone through the fibres of the tights, then you should probably consider wearing them as underwear, rather than assuming they will adequately cover your underwear. Especially if you expect to be walking up stairs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)