iblog

Rushda: When one thinks of famous rock bands, the kinds of names that immediately come to mind are classics like Oasis or U2. But in recent years, new bands are having more and more difficulty in picking good names worthy of posters and T-shirts. A name says so much about a band, but unfortunately new bands seem to have very little alternative but to pick hopeless names such as Joe Lean and The Jing Jang Jong, which not only sounds ridiculous but is already being confused with two other tiredly named bands - the Ting Tings and the Jing Jings.

It’s now been over 50 years since the likes of the Beatles and the Clash were household names, and the creativity has certainly worn thin now with most of the witty puns and wordplays already being taken. The following are all recent examples of uninspiring band titles:

- Good Reads (often confused with Good Shoes, a similar band)
- The Rascals (acceptable if it hadn’t already been used a number of times before)
- The Dykeenies (you what now?)
- I Was A Cub Scout (a little juvenile…)

Nick Stewart from the recording industry, who also happened up U2 to Island Records, says that some bands underestimate how important it is to have a great, unique and catchy name. He says:

“It’s a problem because naming a band is as important as naming a brand. Bands like U2, Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones realised that choosing a name is part of designing a commercial product. The directness and clarity of their names helped sell millions of albums, tickets and T-shirts.”

The tunes may be great, the lyrics catchy, but ultimately many of these bands have really put any would-be success at risk by choosing obscure names that will not be remembered or appreciated by anyone.

Rushda: An amusing new incident emerged at Morrissons supermarket the other day when a 71-year-old pensioner was refused alcohol as he could not produce proof of age. The white-haired, bearded old man was taken aback as staff did not believe that he was old enough to buy the two bottles of Cabernet Sauvignon he produced at the checkout.

Mr Ralls, a grandfather of three, asked to see a manager because of the ludicrous question which he refused to answer as he thought it was clearly “stupid.” However, the manager simply put the wine back on the shelf and showed no consideration. As Mr Ralls explains:

“I felt like saying ‘What do I look like? Are you a fool?’ He picks up the wine and, in the manner of a child taking home his ball, says ‘Well, we won’t serve you’. It is bureaucracy gone mad. If the check-out lady, who was about 40, had asked me with a twinkle in her eye perhaps I would not have been so tetchy. But she asked me the question with a perfectly straight face and I said I wouldn’t dignify the question with an answer. And if the manager had explained that all the staff had to ask everyone because they had previously been fined, but said I was clearly over 21, it would have been fine - but he showed no sense of humour.”

After this incident, Mr Ralls, confused and disappointed, left all his shopping on the conveyor belt and left the store. He now feels too embarrassed to go back until he receives an apology for the bizarre situation. The supermarket insists that what it had done was fair as they take the selling of alcohol very seriously and always ask if in doubt.

Who’s to blame? Is it really a case of regulations going too far or should Mr Ralls have sympathised with their cause and answered the question upfront? Whatever the case, it’s certainly a shocking one, and maybe once he gets over the humiliation, the customer may end up feeling proud of himself for being mistaken for a youngster!

Rushda: Britney’s long awaited comeback occurred last night on the MTV Video Music Awards and many hopeful fans were eager to see a new burst of talent from someone who was once the biggest selling female artist in the world. Unfortunately, however, the song and dance routine will be going down in history for another reason: it was an absolute disaster.

Clearly overweight and mentally not quite with it, Britney dressed in very revealing gaudy underwear and half-heartedly flapped around the stage, not even lip-syncing properly to her new single in the background. Indeed she sometimes even stopped singing altogether. The 25-year-old fallen superstar forgot both the words and her steps on the stage at the Palms casino in Las Vegas and some described her as looking like a “rabbit caught in headlights,” especially due to the messiness of her newly growing hair. An embarrassing video of the ordeal is, naturally, posted online for everyone’s viewing pleasure. As top celebrity blogger Perez Hilton comments:

“Your performance was beyond pathetic. The old Britney Spears, who was at one point (a long time ago) truly great, would be embarrassed by your lack of professionalism and utterly s**teous appearance at the VMAs.”

Similarly, Steve Hall another celebrity blogger, comments on her performance as well:

“At least twice last night, she had to be hoisted up and down from a riser like an overweight kid trying to climb out of a swimming pool… It’s really not a good thing when the backup dancers exude ten times more exuberance than the star.”

Oops, she’s done it again. It has certainly not been Britney’s year - crazy divorces, head shaving, and problems with her children. Now this return in the guise of a stripper will not do anything but ruin her further. Furthermore, to make matters even worse, the biggest winner of the night was her ex boyfriend Justin Timberlake, who picked up an astounding four awards. One does not know whether to laugh at Britney or pity her, but no doubt most will be doing both.

Rushda: An interesting bid is currently taking place by the Words for the World campaign to find out what the British population’s favourite words are. Among the entries submitted, there are rather unusual nominations such as “garlic”, “mayfly”, and “home”.

The campaign, organised by the charity Education Action, aims to highlight the issue of children who have been deprived of education due to war, and this fun attempt will publicise their cause. According to Education Action, almost 40 million children cannot go to school because they live in war zones, and, of course, words are essential for an education. The link may be tenuous but the intention is in the right place with the campaign asking British citizens to submit their favourite words in order to support the campaign.

Thousands of people are submitting their entries, from MPs to authors and actors, and the campaign is becoming a rapid success. Some interesting suggestions include “carminative” from Conservative MP Boris Johnson, “indefatigability” from Respect MP George Galloway, “home” from gardening celebrity Monty Don and the rather peculiar “garlic” from historian Simon Schama. Some people have chosen words due to the pure sound of them, whilst others have gone for meanings with words such as “peace” and “love”.

As Head of Development at Education Action Chris Field says of the popular campaign:

“Giving their favourite word is a great way for people to show their support for the education of all children, particularly on International Literacy Day. We’ve had some really interesting and fun results so far and look forward to seeing more.”

For those who are interested in putting forward their own favourite words, they can do so online by visiting the Education Action website.

Rushda: It is a rather unusual phemonenon for a film’s title to be kept secret until it is released, but that is the new strategy of Lost creator J.J. Abrams who due to the success of the baffling TV drama, has had fans and ordinary filmgoers alike squirming to work out what is going on behind his latest project. All we know is the codeword ‘Cloverfield’, the date January 18, 2008, and an almost creepy trailer of what appears to be an ordinary disaster movie. Or is it? Well, that’s what Abrams seems to be trying to confuse people with by creating suspense in the form of viral marketing which is slowly spreading intense excitement through the Internet.

The trailer for the film first started speculation by being shown in cinemas before the Transformers movie. The clip shows a happy bunch of teenagers who are suddenly witnessing catastrophes, including the head of the Statue of Liberty being blown off and landing at their feet. Paramount Pictures, which is financing the movie, refuses to give more details. Incredibly, even the potential actors for the film were apparently left in the dark, with none of the auditionees for the casting being shown the script until they were chosen. Ultimately what’s most interesting is how Cloverfield, or whatever it is called, is probably a run-of-the-mill film but has turned into a puzzle, with thousands of people trying to grab clues from web searches and put together theories about what’s going on. Abrams obviously has enough respect from determined fans for this to become something huge. Perhaps it is?

Virgil: Most of us will have heard of Google Earth, the neat application from search giant Google that lets you navigate around a 3D Earth, and zoom in to any point on the globe with impressive detail. Now Google have extended the same technology into the sky, providing amateur star-gazers with the best view of the heavens they’ve been able to get their hands on to date.

Google Sky is included with the latest version of Google Earth, adding a button to the interface which flips the camera up into the sky. Whilst the original Earth model looked down upon a sphere, the Sky model inverts this to look up onto the inside face of a much bigger sphere which the camera is inside. This inside face is plastered with thousands of images taken by agencies such as NASA, all compiled into a singular grand night sky. Dr John Mason, of the British Astronomical Association, praised the new application, saying:

“Light pollution and air pollution is now so bad in many areas that all you can see when you look up is a few dozen stars. If this helps people to realise just what they are missing, it is a jolly good thing.”

Whilst Google Sky isn’t the first program to offer stargazing, it appears to be all set to takeover the market. Whilst other options are also free, they do not provide the same interactive, free-moving camera that made Google Earth so popular, along with its rich integration of related data including routes and buildings. Sky offers clear views of over 300 million stars and galaxies, with various overlays to point out constellations and bring up further data relating to celestial bodies. Patrick Moore, the famed British astronomer, likewise sings the applications praises:

“This thing, Google Sky, seems to me the best way to learn your way around, and the stars become so much more interesting when you know which is which, and it’s a bloody good way to do it.”

The program goes alongside Google’s previous other forays into the heavens, Google Moon and Google Mars - I wonder how long it will be before we’re installing the seemingly inevitable Google Universe.

Rushda: The degree courses offered at some universities have always sparked a certain degree of controversy. Apparently there are hundreds of “non-courses” that are offered across the UK as degrees but which are so obscure or useless that some say they shouldn’t be offered at all. Often dubbed “Mickey Mouse” subjects, such courses cost around £40m a year to run, and many argue that students could be studying subjects which are more worthwhile.

A report from the Taxpayers’ Alliance has recently produced a list of over four hundred Mickey Mouse courses which should be abolished as they “lend the respectability of scholarly qualifications to non-academic subjects.” Some of the worst (and most amusing) offenders on the list include Equestrian psychology, at the Welsh College of Horticulture in Mold in Flintshire, Science: fiction and culture at the University of Glamorgan, and Outdoor adventure with philosophy, at Marjon, the College of St Mark and St John in Plymouth. The report argues that obtaining degrees in such subjects is not very respectable for any field and students would be better off studying more traditional subjects. As author of the report Peter Cuthbertson explains:

“Political priorities have led to a never-ending drive to increase the number of students in university. As a result, there has been a massive expansion of ‘non-degrees’ of little or no academic merit. The government has failed in its pledge to abolish ‘Mickey Mouse’ degrees. If ‘non-courses’ were abolished, all the other students could save over £100 on their tuition fees or buy an extra pint of beer a week.”

However, many believe that the attack is unfair. For example, Universities UK argues that these courses are in fact demanded by employers and there are many opportunities for those who obtain degrees in them. They also say that one of the reasons courses like “golf management” are so popular and oversubscribed is that students know what kinds of skills employers are looking for. To judge these courses as worthless is simply “academic snobbery” at best.

Personally I think it is a very tricky issue about whether such courses should be allowed to remain. On the one hand the odd combinations of subjects seems to be making a poor excuse for a degree, whilst on the other hand maybe there are some specific vocational skills that will allow young people to excel in a particular field which they couldn’t participate in otherwise. Whatever the case, surely there must be something to be said about the slippery slope these subjects have generated. Are we really going to have to allow institutions to offer degrees like Brick studies with fashion next?

Virgil: A man enters the bookmaker’s Ladbrokes holding what appears to be a gun inside a bag. He demands cash. The manager hands him over six hundred pounds while the customers shy into corners and stay clear, and then he leaves in a hurry. You move to leave yourself, but then he turns to point the gun at you and says “Back off”. What do you do?

Well, not much if you realise that inside the bag is no more than the robber’s girlfriend’s vibrator. This was the way that Nicki Jex, 27, tried to make away with £613 just after Christmas last year. When customer Wayne Vakani was told to “back off”, he kept his distance but followed the robber’s movements, ultimately providing the information that led to Jex’s arrest.

After initially denying any involvement, Jex later changed tact and pleaded guilty. But making reference to the ridiculous item being used for the hold-up, his defence in mitigation pointed out that the man was in a “fragile” state of mind and in the midst of drug addiction:

“One can be thankful that the item he had wasn’t a firearm. Frankly, he didn’t care less what happened to him at that time. He was falling into the abyss and that’s the root cause of drugs.”

Jex has now been jailed for five years, and Mr Vakani awarded £500 for his “very considerable courage”. Not bad for being threatened by a weapon that would have, at most, tickled.

Virgil: You are presented with a Rubik’s Cube, disordered, and ordered to solve it. You twist and turn the thing for hours through thousands of rotations but get nowhere - it’s just become random and frustrating. As if only to make the defeat more cutting, a new bit of research has proved that at any given stage you are no more than 26 turns away from the solution.

But what if you were God? God would, for every Rubik arrangement, know exactly which twists to make - he’d be able to solve it in the minimum amount of moves. It’s this piece of speculation that has led to the number being called “God’s Number” - the minimum moves needed to solve any Rubik’s Cube if you are omniscient. Whilst the new proof tells us God’s Number is below 26, the truth of the elusive number remains to be discovered.

Why the number is so tantalising a prospect to figure out is anyone’s guess, but perhaps it’s the sheer difficulty of the problem compared to the simplicity of the solution - just an integer in its “low twenties”. Contrasted to the low solution are the 43 billion billion possible Rubik arrangements to plough through to get it - far too much even for a supercomputer.

Graduate student Daniel Kunkle and Gene Cooperman from Northeastern University in Boston thought of a clever way to get round cracking the problem. By telling their computers to only solve the different cube arrangements half-way - arriving at points where they knew only a few more moves would be needed, they came to the half-proof that most arrangements took 26 moves or less, but some were taking 29 or more. They were then able to focus all the computer’s energies on the problem cases above 26, which numbered significantly fewer, finally being able to resolve all of these cases.

Whilst the 21st century’s Rubik counterpart is something like Su Doku, easily solvable by most computers, the Rubik’s Cube of the 1980’s remains firmly mysterious and yet as ever a tantalisingly simple puzzle - if only you knew…

Rushda: A Chinese talent show similar to Pop Idol in Britain has been banned by the the state’s broadcasting watchdog for being tasteless and “vulgar”. The show, which is called The First Heartthrob had attracted about 100,000 Chinese contestants since it began last year, and was one of the few talent shows which got such high ratings. But after consideration, The State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (Sarft) announced that it was unacceptable to air it any longer as it was only aiming at “the low-grade interests of a minority”.

It is difficult to know whether to be appalled or amused about the cancellation, as it would be unheard of for any popular shows in Britain, such as Big Brother or X Factor, to be banned because they do not match the artistic quality of Mozart. It is also unclear what exactly was wrong with The First Heartthrob for it to apparently show a lack of social responsibility. In their own words Sarft say:

“The design of the show is coarse. The judges’ behaviour lacks grace. The programming lacks artistic standards. The tone of the show has cheapened. The songs performed are vulgar.”

Apparently the decision might have something to do with a tightening of media controls due to the Chinese Communist Party’s congress. Alternatively, it is also speculated that it might have been prompted by a contestant making a judge cry. Either way, it’s quite a confusing issue that no doubt thousands are unhappy about. Perhaps this story will mean I end up watching the new series of X Factor with pride!