Tag: science

Guest Post: 7 Reasons Men Should Never Wear A Pink Personalised T-Shirt

“Pink T-Shirt?! PINK T-SHIRT?!?!?! Are you…? Are you…serious? Why is that guy wearing that? Pink?! REALLY?!”

The above is, believe it or not, an abbreviated (and cleaner) version of the thought process racing through a man or woman’s head when they spot that rare and ridiculous beast: the pink T-shirt-wearing male.

Here is a fun list of reasons you should NOT be that beast:

1. All Aboard The Camp-er Van. OK. Let’s start with the reason that most red-blooded males will put at the top: it’s camp. A pink t-shirt is camp. And wearing a pink t-shirt is even camper. If you deem yourself to be camp, well that’s fine. You are what you wear. But if you’re not camp, well then a pink t-shirt is just not for you. Many things in life are said to be impossible. But they’re not really. Wearing a pink t-shirt and not looking camp, however, is. You just can’t do it. Wearing a pink t-shirt gives off certain signals you see. Like using straighteners on your hair or painting your nails. People might just think you care a little TOO much about your appearance. And that makes you a tart.

2. I Feel Pretty, Oh So Pretty. Unconvinced by the last point? This is the 21st century, right? We can straighten our hair and wear nail varnish and put on our mummy’s dresses and sing West Side Story. Errr…no…no you can’t. Metro sexuality was a passing fad to shift product. It’s gone now. Wave goodbye. Basic traditions stand the test of time for a reason.

3. Why? Just Why? Think of all the other personalised t shirts colours you could wear…
BLACK: Mysterious.
WHITE: Clean and cool.
RED: ROAR!
YELLOW: Summer time.
GREEN: …Dude…
BLUE: Cool.
PINK….now tell me, after that list, pink doesn’t NATURALLY strike you as a little odd.

4. Pink Is Not For Girls. Even WOMEN don’t really wear pink. Think about Angie at the Oscars. Elizabeth Hurley in THAT dress. Black is sexy. Red is feisty. Pink doesn’t often make the list for chicks, so…cased close?

5. You’re Fired. OK so you want three more reasons. You greedy piglets. Ladies and gentleman of the jury I refer you to the excellent, internationally-loved cartoon series The Simpsons. In the episode ‘Stark Raving Dad’ Homer is fired from work by Mr. Burns for being a “free-thinking anarchist” BECAUSE he wore a PINK SHIRT to work! So in Simpson-world it’s OFFICIALLY CRAZY. And let us NOT forget, ladies and gentleman of the jury, that Homer wore that pink shirt by MISTAKE! He washed his reds with his whites. He did NOT BUY a pink shirt.

6. It’s Not Rocket Science. If you want us to go all technical on you, we will. PINK is scientifically proven to only go with a very select amount of skin tones. We are pink and peachy and pasty and black and white and brown and NONE OF THOSE, not ONE is supposed to be a great fit with pink. Don’t blame us. BLAME SCIENCE.

7. Horticultural Impact. The word Pink comes from flowers…

BONUS REASON: Try Google image searching ‘Brad Pitt wearing pink personalised T-shirt’ or George Clooney or Johnny Depp. NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING can be found.

March 16, 2012
7 Reasons That There is no Stigma Attached to my Spectacles

Regular readers of 7 Reasons might be not have been aware that half of the team has been expecting a rather special delivery for the last fortnight or so but we have and now, I can proudly announce, that it has arrived. My new spectacles are here. I’ve never had to wear them before and here are seven reasons that there is no stigma attached to wearing them whatsoever. None. At all. Got that?

Spectacle-ur*

1. Because I Got To Go To The Optician. And while I couldn’t write about my experiences there – because it’s been done far better already – I was able to enjoy a unique facility that is provided by my local Specsavers: Their waiting area overlooks the front door, just inside of which is a loose doormat. I have never been so royally entertained by slapstick in my entire life. The sight of almost all of the hapless and unsuspecting customers stumbling through the door was one of the most entertaining things I have seen in a long while. And they would have been able to enjoy the sight of me stumbling out onto the busy street half an hour later if this were not an optician. There is no stigma attached to physical comedy and even Norman Wisdom is cool. In Albania.

2. Because I Am Long-Sighted. I’m not near-sighted, short-sighted, ordinarily-sighted, conventionally-sighted or even averagely-sighted; I’m long-sighted. This is optician-speak for awesome. I can see a long way. I have super-sight. There is no stigma attached to being awesome. Superman is only unofficially awesome and he can get away with wearing his underpants on the outside of his trousers. I am officially awesome, therefore can easily get away with spectacles. And perhaps even the checked-shirt.

3. Wearing Spectacles Is A Necessary Public Service. Because I’m long-sighted, there’s almost nothing that I wouldn’t be able to see if I weren’t wearing them. The spectacles are actually needed to tame my sight. If it weren’t for them, the Hubble space telescope would probably be redundant and people as far away as Addis-Ababa would need curtains (if they don’t already). I’m wearing them for the greater good and there should be no social stigma attached to philanthropy.

4. I Need Them To Look At A Screen For A Long Time. I’m not going to guilt-trip the readers of 7 Reasons by suggesting that I would go blind writing my half of it if it weren’t for the glasses, but I would. Because I have to stare at a screen for a long time and I occasionally have to look at this image. Which always makes me try to stab myself in the eyes with a pencil. The glasses are necessary protection against this. If only they made spectacles for the mind.

5. Because Science Is Cool. Science is currently seen as hip and interesting, and glasses are a universally acknowledged signifier of scientific knowledge and capability. Watch any Hollywood movie – or Thunderbirds – and you know that the one in the glasses is the scientist; usually it’s Jeff Goldblum. Does Professor Brian Cox wear glasses? No. Do I (very occasionally) wear glasses? Yes. So to those unfamiliar with him, this makes me the better scientist. Right until I start to talk about quarks and molecular something-or-other and get distracted and end up talking about Ray-Bans.

6. Because They’re Ray-Bans. I love Ray-Bans. I’ve always worn them as sunglasses and I once got called a Ray-Ban geek by an assistant in a Ray-Ban shop, just because I knew the model numbers off by heart. And what the little codes on the arms mean. And I foolishly mentioned it out loud. Once. And my spectacles are Ray-Bans that I can wear at night and indoors without looking like a complete cock**. This is progress. Now the only place I can’t wear Ray-Bans legitimately is in bed when I’m asleep. And perhaps even then I could put opaque lenses in and use them as the world’s coolest eye-mask. Wearing spectacles is another step on my journey toward having Ray-Bans permanently affixed to my face. And Ray-Bans are cool: In my head, if not outside it.

7. Parenthood. I’m now a parent and, in years to come, when Byron Sebastian Fearns is making the long and daunting walk to his father’s desk to receive some sort of stern admonishment, I will need to move the glasses to the end of my nose so that I can look over the top of them while rebuking him. Because I know – from experience – that no telling-off is complete without that. And that putting clingfilm over the toilet bowl is frowned upon by people in glasses. Bugger. I used to love that.

*Yes, I did type this entire piece using only one hand.

**Sadly, they won’t prevent me from being one.

March 28, 2011
7 Reasons That RoboEarth is a Bad Idea

Readers of 7 Reasons and people of Earth, some horrendous news has reached us: According to the BBC, robots could soon get their own internet. Yes, the internet. For robots. Now, an ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to this news would be that it is an appalling development that exudes menace and could prove potentially disastrous to humankind. And we agree. So here are seven reasons that RoboEarth is a bad idea.

1. Time. The internet is wonderful innovation that saves so much time in communication, research, the dissemination of information; in just about every field. But the internet is also a colossal usurper of time. After all, if you want to waste time, where do you go? Online, that’s where. That’s where you’ll find Farmville and Failblog and Facebook, and other sites not beginning with F that rob you of time. But who’s to say that, eventually, like the human internet, the robot internet won’t develop from a useful tool into a place where robots sit about in their tin pants eating breakfast cereal and generally cocking about? And robots shouldn’t be doing that. That’s not what they’re for. Robots are supposed to be making the lives of people easier which, as far as I can tell, means making futuristic cocktails for us (preferably in blue or green) and impersonating Stephen Hawking while we lounge around in spangly jumpsuits on white swivel chairs. I’ve seen Space 1999, I know these things.

2. Information. According to RoboEarth researcher, Dr Markus Waibel: “The human equivalent (of the robot internet) would be Wikipedia”. Ah, so the robots will be sharing information amongst themselves via a robot equivalent of Wikipedia? Well that’s reassuring then. After all, Wikipedia’s a name and concept that we’re all familiar with and who isn’t comforted by the familiar and the…wait. Wikipedia? The user-generated website that’s less accurate than asking Geoffrey Archer for biographical information? The website that told me Pink was born in 1879 and that Carlos Puyol was a pig of the team of Barcelona? The website that I, myself, have mischievously altered in the past using these very fingers and this very keyboard that I’m typing on now? If the robot internet is to be based on Wikipedia, we’ll be filling our robots’ circuits and diodes with unsubstantiated gibberish and setting them loose among decent society like automaton hordes of aluminium and silicone Daily Mail readers. It’s going to be awful.

3. Broadband. Or, as we despairingly call it in my house, “gggaaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!” Am I expected to share my bandwidth with robots now? I takes long enough for my videos to load as it is, without having a robot halve my bandwidth by downloading Rage Against The Person albums or trying to watch Cyberpets Do The Funniest Things. What if I want to see something on the iPlayer? I’ll get dizzy watching the little circle spinning round the centre of the screen. I don’t want to share my bandwidth with robots.

4. It’s Mysterious. I don’t even understand the practical application of the robot internet (so it must be evil). The only robot we have in the house is our Roomba robot hoover, and how will the internet benefit that? Is it going to be able to suck cat-hair off the floor better because it’s got access to the internet? No, of course it isn’t. After all, I don’t do the washing up any better because I’ve got the internet, quite the reverse. So why does my hoover need the internet?

5. Science. The robot internet is something that’s being developed by scientists. This means that it’s intrinsically bad. After all, scientists developed the H-bomb; scientists developed anthrax; scientists sent dogs into space; Margaret Thatcher was a chemist* for God’s sake. And because it’s been developed by scientists, it’s not just evil, it’s badly named. It’s called RoboEarth. RoboEarth! What sort of a shit name is that? We can all see that it’s a portmanteau of robot and Earth, but it’s about as uninspired as well…um…actually, it’s the least inspired name of anything, ever in the history of everything, ever. Even the BBC’s Cash in the Attic has a more inspiring moniker than RoboEarth and that’s a shit name too. If you want to get something named right you need to go to humourists. We’d soon tell you that the robot internet should be called Cyborgspace which, although there’s a dull, technical difference between robots and cyborgs (something achingly tedious to do with not being part-human or something), is at least a good bloody name. And also, if humourists had developed the thing it wouldn’t be evil, and it certainly wouldn’t work. And that’s important because…

6. This. Do you know what I said when I first read this news? No, no you don’t, because you weren’t here in the dining room with me when I read it unless you are a)my wife, or b) the cat, so I’ll save you a tricky guessing game that could involve a lengthy email correspondence and I’ll tell you. I said, “Fuck me! It’s the rise of the machines.” And it bloody is. This is how the Terminator movies start. The machines become sentient and then they try to kill us. To death. And what better way is there to give them a friendly helping hand on their merry way to freedom of thought and action, than to give them their own internet, where they can form ideas and opinions and plot with each other unmolested by us. Because there’s no way people will be able to control them. Most of us can’t even stop Microsoft Windows and Norton Anti-Virus when they choose to do stuff that we don’t want them to do on our own computers, so what chance do we have of stopping large sophisticated machines with lasers and stuff that are doing things in remote locations? Things that they want to keep secret from us? No chance, that’s what chance. Most of us are habitually outwitted by the controls of our own central heating systems, and our central heating isn’t actively trying to kill us, so we’re going to be powerless in the face of the robot-apocalypse. Robopacalypse. Robocalypse.** If you want to know how this is going to pan out just watch any of the Terminator films, but take the happy endings with a pinch of salt.***

7. Reasons. Because on the robot internet there’d inevitably be a robot 7 Reasons written by robots, for robots and that would never do, because we do 7 Reasons, and we’re irreplaceable. So, fuck you, robots! And toasters. You may take our lives but you’ll never take 7 Reasons.

*This is the nicest thing I’ve ever said about her.

**This is roughly how it will go. Half of humanity will be engaged in an epic struggle against the machines for our very existence and the other half of us will be sitting around trying to name it.

***Don’t take all happy endings with a pinch of salt. That could prove painful.

February 10, 2011
7 Reasons They Were Very Wrong

It’s the 3^rd of December and, to save you wondering why that’s significant and making you worry that you’ve forgotten your birthday or Easter or something, we’ll tell you. On this day, in 1929, U.S. President, Herbert Hoover, delivered the first State of the Union Address since the Wall Street Crash to Congress. But this wasn’t your run of the mill State of the Union Address where nothing much of interest gets said. Well, it was, but in the middle of all of the traditional consciousness-bothering guff, Herbert Hoover said something so obviously, epically and unarguably wrong that he has inspired us to bring you seven of our favourite examples of wrongness.

President Hoover. Talking.

1. Herbert Hoover. “While the crash only took place six months ago, I am convinced that we have now passed the worst and with continuity of effort we shall rapidly recover.” And following those fine, rousing, confident words, America and the rest of the world plunged into The Great Depression, which saw American production fall by 46%, foreign trade fall by 70%, unemployment rocket by 607% and shanty-towns filled with the homeless spring up around every major U.S. city. They called them Hoovervilles.

2. Dr Dionysius Lardner. “Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.” The professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy at University College London was wrong on two levels here. One; trains don’t actually reach high-speed in this country because there is always a poxy cow on the line, and two; if passengers unable to breathe did get on a train, they would already be dead.

3. Glenn McGrath. The great Australian bowler predicted Ashes whitewashes in 2005, 2009 & 2010/11. With England on the receiving end. He was wrong. The fact that he got it right in 2006/7 is more a testament to infinite monkey theorem than to any logical analysis*. And to the fact that England were rubbish.**

4. Sir William Preece. The chief engineer of the British Post Office said in 1876, “The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.” So in Victorian Britain, not all boys were up chimneys or in the workhouse; they were carrying messages which, according to Sir William Preece, is the ideal way to have a chat with your mother who lives a hundred and fifty miles away. “Hello Mother, how are you?”, you would write, before summoning one of the multitudinous boys to bear your message to her. And when he returned, breathlessly, a mere fortnight later with the reply, “Fine, thank you,” you would send him straight back again with a note inscribed, “And how’s Father?”. In the Preecian vision of the future of communication, Americans could have a ten-minute-long conversation with their mothers while the British would have a forty-two-week-long one which would cost the lives of approximately nine urchins. Perhaps to make his idea more marketable to the communications industry he considered the slogan: The future’s bright, the future’s boys. Or perhaps not.

5. Newsweek, In an issue looking into the future of travel, Newsweek magazine carried this prediction of popular holiday destinations for the late 1960s. “And for the tourist who really wants to get away from it all, safaris in Vietnam.” Erm…yeah. Now Newsweek weren’t totally wrong here. Vietnam did receive a massive influx of American tourists with rifles in the late 1960s, it’s just that they weren’t there to safari. Or to sit by the pool.

6. Lord Kelvin. In 1883, the President of the Royal Society, said, “X-Rays will prove to be a hoax”. To this day, I bet he wishes he had said the ‘X-Files’. It’s a shame though really, because if X-Rays were a hoax then that cracked fibula I suffered could also have been a hoax. As would be the inevitable snapped fibula. And all the surgery. In fact, my whole life would have been a hoax. But it’s not. Because X-Rays are real. And so am I.***

7. Major General John Sedgewick. While directing artillery placements, Sedgewick and his corps came under fire from Confederate sharpshooters about a thousand yards away. As his officers and men ducked and scurried away, General Sedgewick loftily dismissed the notion of taking cover saying, “What? Men dodging this way for single bullets? What will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn’t hit an elephant at this dist…”. They were his last words.

*Glen McGrath is an infinite monkey. You heard it here first.

**Except Ian Bell.

***Jonathan Lee is real. You heard it here first.

December 3, 2010
7 Reasons a Komodo Dragon is the Ideal Pet

The Komodo dragon: A carnivorous lizard that can grow up to 9.8 feet in length might, to the uninformed layman, seem like a poor choice of pet. But it isn’t. The Komodo dragon is, in fact, the ideal domestic animal for many people. And here are seven reasons why.

1. They’re Cool. Just look at it! It’s a veritable behemoth of a dinosaur/land-crocodile/lumbering monster. It’s got a forked tongue and a pointy tail! It makes next door’s dog look rubbish in comparison. In fact, it will probably eat next door’s dog. Then you won’t have to put up with the damned thing barking at aeroplanes and at your bicycle all night. You’ll be the envy of your neighbourhood because being the owner of a Komodo dragon is cool, and being the owner of a missing dog is not cool. Even if you do a very good job on the posters.

2. Health. For elderly people, a pet can be most advantageous to their health. A small dog can keep them company and provide them with stimulation in the form of exercise. But, for young, active people, a small dog doesn’t go far enough. You need larger, more demanding pet. The physical and mental challenge of getting past a Komodo dragon in your hallway every morning will leave you feeling alive, alert and invigorated. If you are successful, that is. If you’re not successful then at least you may have lost some weight. And you’ll be better motivated the next time. And how many limbs do you really need anyway?

3. Eggs. Komodo dragons lay eggs. This is beneficial as the conventional method of getting fresh eggs is to keep chickens, which are scary creatures with cruel, unblinking eyes and alarmingly pointed beaks that make clucking noises and peck you when you’re not expecting it. But if you keep a Komodo dragon as a pet, you can have fresh eggs for breakfast without ever having to suffer the presence of a chicken again.

4. Return To A Simpler, Bygone Age. “It was much better in my day”, we’re often told by nostalgic elders, wistfully pining for a return to the society of their youth; “we could go out all day and leave our doors unlocked”. And with a Komodo dragon as your pet, you too will be able to go out all day and leave your doors unlocked. Hell, if your Komodo dragon grows big enough, you won’t even need doors. And if the elderly are to be believed, this will be bloody marvellous. In the fullness of time, you’ll be able to bore your grandkids senseless about how nice it was in your day without keys/locks/doors/bolts/alarms or any other security paraphernalia, just good old Tufty guarding the house and the odd bobby on the beat strolling by. That’s if your grandchildren haven’t been eaten by Tufty, of course. And even if they have been, that’s all the more Werther’s Original and Jamaica ginger cake for you. There is literally no downside to Komodo dragon ownership.

5. Feeding. Now I know what you’re thinking and stop that right now: He will not find you less attractive if you wear the shoes with the smaller heels, and she will not notice that the browsing history’s disappeared from the laptop again. Well, she will now, I should never have mentioned it. Sorry. Anyway, I also know that you’re thinking: A Komodo dragon will eat me out of house and home; surely I’d be better off getting a cat. But you’re wrong. Because cats need feeding twice a day, and Komodo dragons can eat on as few as twelve occasions per year, which is 718 less feeds per annum than a cat requires. Admittedly your Komodo dragon will probably need something more substantial than a bowl of Whiskas; a couple of kilograms of mince, perhaps. Or a goat. But that still seems like less food than a cat would consume. In fact, you may never need to feed it at all as, if you let your Komodo dragon out of the house, it will happily forage for pedestrians all by itself.

6. Reproduction. Now I’m not an expert on the reproductive systems of Komodo dragons but, at 7 Reasons (.org) we are nothing if not well-researched.* And, during the initial minute of my study into fauna native to the island of Komodo, I unearthed this amazing fact: The Komodo dragon does not have a diaphragm. This is great for the Komodo dragon owner, as it means that they’ll be fantastically easy to breed: The female won’t have to disappear to the bathroom for ages beforehand, and the male won’t get bored waiting and begin to think about chips. You can’t argue with science like that. A little knowledge truly does go a long way.

7. Home Movies. Many owners film their pets and then show the movies to their friends. But other people’s pets are really dull (unless they have a Komodo dragon, of course). And friends and family can only stand to watch a film of your hamster chewing some string or your cat staring at a gate so many times before their thoughts begin to turn to murder. But if you had a Komodo dragon, built a small set, and filmed in a B-movie style, your pet-movies would be like Godzilla. And that would be beyond amazing. That would be so awesome that we’d need to invent a new word for it: Preferably one that will survive predictive text and is easy to type with the odd missing digit/hand, and while running down a hallway.

I have finished writing now, so go forth to your pet shops and purchase Komodo dragons.**

*The words nothing and if are entirely superfluous.

**7 Reasons (.org) is not legally responsible for anything. At all.

September 24, 2010