One of my most recent librivox downloads was 'War of the Worlds' by HG Wells. I've actually become somewhat of a Wells fan of late, despite my inital misgivings from being forced to read The Time Machine when 12. I'll talk about The Island of Dr Moreau later, but with both that novel and WotW I couldn't help but notice how frightening and even relevant they still are. In the best tradition of science fiction, Wells uses seemingly fantastical situations to comment on the climate, acheivements and fears of the time. The only real demonstration of the age of the original is that even neighbouring villages to the scene of the initial carnage refuse to believe the stories until it happens to them in turn due to the lack of communication technology and media at the time.
Reading this, all I could think was that if it were to happen in Britain today, shaky mobile phone footage of hooded kids happy-slapping the martians would be on youtube before the BBC even got to the scene. God bless the technological revolution that has made each and everyone one of us a potential journalist/criminal!*
*But is this the same thing? For further discussion see the Diana Inquest, everywhere, constantly.
Friday, October 26, 2007
'Who said you could activate the stem cell heart?'
Although the above phrase appears to have come straight from some American B-movie involving hammy scientists running around a deserted lab in a thunderstorm, it is in fact taken from a recent ITV drama. Which involved scientists running around a deserted lab in a thunderstorm.
Yes, I made the mistake of watching the ITV 're-modelling' of Frankenstein on Wednesday night. 'Oo goody!' thought I, 'A modern update of one of my favourite stories, with the added bonus of genetic engineering thrown in!'. My only concern was that it would show science acheiving things it could never do in a way that would make less, englightened, members of the viewing public even more against genetic engineering and scientists in general than they already are*.
Oh, if only I'd known how unfounded my fears were. Anyone who believed that the programme showed an accurate portrayal of science today is defying evolution themselves by having managed to live this long. Scientists ran about in some abandoned mill, storms raging overhead and various body parts lying around the lab with an apparent disregard of health and safety regulations. This is forgivable- it IS a horror story - but worse was to come. Every experiment appeared to have to take place in what appeared to be a flotation tank full of blood, and the only equipment shown to be used were the kind of pipettes you might measure medicine for a household pet in, rather than the fancy looking things you see on news reports**. (I suppose it might have been NHS funded research...)
We were expected to believe that by squirting a pipette full of what I assume was DNA solution (but may as well have been fairy dust for all the sense the plot made) into what appeared to be one of these blood filled tanks some kind of mutated fetus could appear in 24 hours, and then escape and grow to be 8 foot tall the next day. Said mutant then went on a killing spree, was captured and in potentially the least subtle homage to the previous incarnations imaginable (only relevant to the three people watching who didn't think ITV created the idea) attach 'bolts' to it's neck that control it via some kind of bluetooth/infrared. Interestingly, ITV chose not to explore the idea that the monster could there by be controlled by mobile phones, and would have a hell of a time on public transport.
The mutant was created from the DNA of leading scientists son who had died of an unanmed disease that involved all his organs failing at once despite looking perfectly healthy in flashbacks to the recent past. Interestingly, once he was dead no one really ever mentioned him again, and there appeared to be some kind of champagne fueled party attended by the parents shortly afterwards. Oviously, the monster loved it's 'parent' and a nice bond was created, until it got out again and ran around on the roof in a completley incomprehensible scene that then switched to everyone on some kinf of seaside holiday. Becoming dafter by the minute, the father was shot for no apparent reason and we end up with our mother and 'son' in a research lab being observed by a Shady Government Scientist (TM). In a move clearly designed to show just how clever the programme really was, the closing lines ask whether the monster will love or hate it's creator when it finds how much fear he himself inspires. Sadly, I had stopped caring.
I actually found some ideas raised within the programme truly interesting - the monster clothed itself as soon as it escaped, siuggesting it was ashamed if it's nudity. It also recognized it's 'mother': is this a suggestion that children are born with innate ideas, or that it inherited memories along with the dead boy's DNA? Sadly, I can't help but think these were byproducts of a poorly developed plot rather than an attempt to inspire genuine philosphical debate.
The metro review called it a sensitive drama bringing up interesting questions about the morals of genetics engineering, which in my view is about as accurate as calling the metro a newspaper.
* I'm not being unfair here. I have been asked, at various points in my scientific career, when DNA was invented and if I cloned sheep in my lab sessions. The answer to these questions are quite clearly: James Watson invented DNA in 1873 and we didn't clone sheep in our lab sessions, we had to use squirrels as they are easier to handle.
** A friend's lab was recently filmed for the regional news and after filming him pipetting, using PCR machines and so on for a while, the crew asked him to pour water from one beaker to another. This got used in the news report, apparently looking more like science than science does. All I could think of was the episode of the Simpsons in which the techies on a film set explain that horses don't look like horses on tv, you have to tape a bunch of cats together...
Yes, I made the mistake of watching the ITV 're-modelling' of Frankenstein on Wednesday night. 'Oo goody!' thought I, 'A modern update of one of my favourite stories, with the added bonus of genetic engineering thrown in!'. My only concern was that it would show science acheiving things it could never do in a way that would make less, englightened, members of the viewing public even more against genetic engineering and scientists in general than they already are*.
Oh, if only I'd known how unfounded my fears were. Anyone who believed that the programme showed an accurate portrayal of science today is defying evolution themselves by having managed to live this long. Scientists ran about in some abandoned mill, storms raging overhead and various body parts lying around the lab with an apparent disregard of health and safety regulations. This is forgivable- it IS a horror story - but worse was to come. Every experiment appeared to have to take place in what appeared to be a flotation tank full of blood, and the only equipment shown to be used were the kind of pipettes you might measure medicine for a household pet in, rather than the fancy looking things you see on news reports**. (I suppose it might have been NHS funded research...)
We were expected to believe that by squirting a pipette full of what I assume was DNA solution (but may as well have been fairy dust for all the sense the plot made) into what appeared to be one of these blood filled tanks some kind of mutated fetus could appear in 24 hours, and then escape and grow to be 8 foot tall the next day. Said mutant then went on a killing spree, was captured and in potentially the least subtle homage to the previous incarnations imaginable (only relevant to the three people watching who didn't think ITV created the idea) attach 'bolts' to it's neck that control it via some kind of bluetooth/infrared. Interestingly, ITV chose not to explore the idea that the monster could there by be controlled by mobile phones, and would have a hell of a time on public transport.
The mutant was created from the DNA of leading scientists son who had died of an unanmed disease that involved all his organs failing at once despite looking perfectly healthy in flashbacks to the recent past. Interestingly, once he was dead no one really ever mentioned him again, and there appeared to be some kind of champagne fueled party attended by the parents shortly afterwards. Oviously, the monster loved it's 'parent' and a nice bond was created, until it got out again and ran around on the roof in a completley incomprehensible scene that then switched to everyone on some kinf of seaside holiday. Becoming dafter by the minute, the father was shot for no apparent reason and we end up with our mother and 'son' in a research lab being observed by a Shady Government Scientist (TM). In a move clearly designed to show just how clever the programme really was, the closing lines ask whether the monster will love or hate it's creator when it finds how much fear he himself inspires. Sadly, I had stopped caring.
I actually found some ideas raised within the programme truly interesting - the monster clothed itself as soon as it escaped, siuggesting it was ashamed if it's nudity. It also recognized it's 'mother': is this a suggestion that children are born with innate ideas, or that it inherited memories along with the dead boy's DNA? Sadly, I can't help but think these were byproducts of a poorly developed plot rather than an attempt to inspire genuine philosphical debate.
The metro review called it a sensitive drama bringing up interesting questions about the morals of genetics engineering, which in my view is about as accurate as calling the metro a newspaper.
* I'm not being unfair here. I have been asked, at various points in my scientific career, when DNA was invented and if I cloned sheep in my lab sessions. The answer to these questions are quite clearly: James Watson invented DNA in 1873 and we didn't clone sheep in our lab sessions, we had to use squirrels as they are easier to handle.
** A friend's lab was recently filmed for the regional news and after filming him pipetting, using PCR machines and so on for a while, the crew asked him to pour water from one beaker to another. This got used in the news report, apparently looking more like science than science does. All I could think of was the episode of the Simpsons in which the techies on a film set explain that horses don't look like horses on tv, you have to tape a bunch of cats together...
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
talking books
Being allowed to listen to my ipod whilst I do my menial an mind numbing tasks at work has 1) rapidly increased my productivity whilst decreaing my boredom and 2) lead me to the discovery of librivox.
Librivox is an 'acoustical liberation of books in the public domain' or rather, a library of audio books recorded by the public, that are out of copyright in the US. Free audio books! Brilliant.
Which it is, except they are read by members of the public. Mostly American members of public, and they are mostly British books. Having to hear a woman with a grating Southern accent mispronounce their way through Jane Austen novels is nothing short of painful, and Phantom of the Opera was even worse, thanks to one reader who read out every French word as it was spelt. Ouch. The English readers (and the many other nationalities that volunteer) can also be as bad. However, I am hugely grateful that these people have volunteered their time to contribute to this website. However much I may struggle to listen to the odd reading, none of these people are professionals and some do a bloody amazing job (one male American reader made me cry with his reading of Phantom of the Opera. He had a different voice for every character, put a huge range of emotion in and if he's not an actor already, is sorely wasted on whatever it is he does)
Thanks to this website, I'm 'reading' a book every day at work, and it's keeping me going! I also intend to volunteer myself once I've cured myself of my terrible habit of speaking far too quickly. (I'm practising this by reading to my boyfriend every night, from 'A Brief History of Time')
So yes, go to librivox, listen to some books and volunteer! Especially if you're Irish, I'm in love with the voice of the one Irish girl who I've heard so far......
Librivox is an 'acoustical liberation of books in the public domain' or rather, a library of audio books recorded by the public, that are out of copyright in the US. Free audio books! Brilliant.
Which it is, except they are read by members of the public. Mostly American members of public, and they are mostly British books. Having to hear a woman with a grating Southern accent mispronounce their way through Jane Austen novels is nothing short of painful, and Phantom of the Opera was even worse, thanks to one reader who read out every French word as it was spelt. Ouch. The English readers (and the many other nationalities that volunteer) can also be as bad. However, I am hugely grateful that these people have volunteered their time to contribute to this website. However much I may struggle to listen to the odd reading, none of these people are professionals and some do a bloody amazing job (one male American reader made me cry with his reading of Phantom of the Opera. He had a different voice for every character, put a huge range of emotion in and if he's not an actor already, is sorely wasted on whatever it is he does)
Thanks to this website, I'm 'reading' a book every day at work, and it's keeping me going! I also intend to volunteer myself once I've cured myself of my terrible habit of speaking far too quickly. (I'm practising this by reading to my boyfriend every night, from 'A Brief History of Time')
So yes, go to librivox, listen to some books and volunteer! Especially if you're Irish, I'm in love with the voice of the one Irish girl who I've heard so far......
Monday, September 24, 2007
Late night fever stricken web browsing..
..leads to a return of my ebay obsession. I seem to have developed some sort of unspecefied virus and as such can't sleep (also, am waiting for boyfriend to return from his late night dissertation panics, once you get used to sharing a bed with someone you can't sleep alone) and wandered onto ebay to have a look for a replacement for a dress I have managed to ruin. This was a mistake. Several hours in and I have searched through every bloody size 14 dress on there, have about fifty things on my watch list and have convinced myself that I reeallly need a rose print laura ashley skirt. And my glands are still up.
The afore mentioned longing for rose print garments may have something to do with the reappearance of twee in my life. I had a brief foray into noise, but I'm running back to belle and sebastian with my arms wide open. And if anyone wants to buy me a stars t shirt from the yellow bird project, that would be nice.
In other dull news, I'm addicted to tetris and I never finish any crochet I start.
The afore mentioned longing for rose print garments may have something to do with the reappearance of twee in my life. I had a brief foray into noise, but I'm running back to belle and sebastian with my arms wide open. And if anyone wants to buy me a stars t shirt from the yellow bird project, that would be nice.
In other dull news, I'm addicted to tetris and I never finish any crochet I start.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
After a short hiatus....
..I am back (to save the universe).
And what spurred me on to getting back to blogging? My hatred of crocs. Which now come in a fur lined option. Dear God.
Ok, so they're comfortable. So are your boyfriends boxers and your dads walking socks but there's no need to start wearing them in public (though if the new 'melting pot' trend is anything to go by, perhaps there is). They are hideous. They can make grown men cry, and not in the good way. A man working at Nottingham University wears them with suits. SUITS. It's all I can do not to leap out of the bus and grab them off his feet in a bid to save him from himself.
Fashion isn't about comfort. It's never been about comfort. It's about putting yourselves through all sorts of ridiculous procedures in order to look nice, and crocs do not look nice. My feet are horrifically battle scarred from years of abuse through shoes that are too big/small/pointy/flat/high (and years of ballet) but who cares, no one sees my feet anyway because they are always covered by attractive shoes. In fact, my feet have been scarred since the age of about 7, when I had my first pair of 'proper' shoes (ie, not with a t-bar, which was the sign of being a grown up. Odd then that now I eally crave those gold t-bars from primark that I missed out on). I refused to take them off even when they had become far too small for me, resulting in my toes now not quite being straight. Start em young, that's what I say.
Anyway. Crocs. It's time to pin your colours to the mast and follow the lead of Manolo over at shoeblogs in stopping this crime against fashion once and for all. Just Say No.
And what spurred me on to getting back to blogging? My hatred of crocs. Which now come in a fur lined option. Dear God.
Ok, so they're comfortable. So are your boyfriends boxers and your dads walking socks but there's no need to start wearing them in public (though if the new 'melting pot' trend is anything to go by, perhaps there is). They are hideous. They can make grown men cry, and not in the good way. A man working at Nottingham University wears them with suits. SUITS. It's all I can do not to leap out of the bus and grab them off his feet in a bid to save him from himself.
Fashion isn't about comfort. It's never been about comfort. It's about putting yourselves through all sorts of ridiculous procedures in order to look nice, and crocs do not look nice. My feet are horrifically battle scarred from years of abuse through shoes that are too big/small/pointy/flat/high (and years of ballet) but who cares, no one sees my feet anyway because they are always covered by attractive shoes. In fact, my feet have been scarred since the age of about 7, when I had my first pair of 'proper' shoes (ie, not with a t-bar, which was the sign of being a grown up. Odd then that now I eally crave those gold t-bars from primark that I missed out on). I refused to take them off even when they had become far too small for me, resulting in my toes now not quite being straight. Start em young, that's what I say.
Anyway. Crocs. It's time to pin your colours to the mast and follow the lead of Manolo over at shoeblogs in stopping this crime against fashion once and for all. Just Say No.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Shameless plug...
If you are in London on these dates I urge you to go see this play: the writer has won awards and is all very good etc but most importantly, Becky Gunstone the designer is my best friend. She's incredibly talented: go see her work. And go see her play.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
New Kid On The Block
So, thanks to a Blue Peter competition, there is a new Bash Street Kids gang member for that old children's favourite The Beano(I didn't even know it was still going, to be honest). He is called 'Wayne's in Pain' and is an accident prone chracter suffering from numberous injuries at any one time, created by 7yr old James Thompson from Sheffield.
On the BBC website James is quotes as saying: ""Wayne was based on the fact I went through a period of small accidents, which meant I had injuries."
Have you ever met a seven year old child that talks like this?
Cause me pain, Heidi Slimane
I am in love with the House of Holland t-shirts with slogans relating to British designers such as 'Cum Again Christopher Kane' and 'Get yr freak on, Giles Deacon'. I want one quite a lot.However, what I want more is to create my own with my favourite scientists on. 'Kiss me Quick, Francis Crick' anyone? Maybe inapropriate, he is dead. I was thinking of a philosophy range too, perhaps involved the rhyming of 'Kant' and 'Pant' but who knows. i certainly intend to make some after my exams are over.
Speaking of which, I am still short many many thousands of words on my dissertation so, goodbye!
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Worky work work work
This has made me LOL a lot today, and was clearly written by someone both intelligent and probably hot too.
The whole 'we've found kryptoinite!" thing though, seriously. It's not, is it? It's a substance with the same molecular composition as the FICTIONAL rock had, which it was probably given because nothing with that composition had been found yet. I love that one scientist has had to state "I'm afraid it's not green and it doesn't glow either - although it will react to ultraviolet light by fluorescing a pinkish-orange," because no doubt, someone would have thought it really was kryptonite. And it doesn't even contain Flourine, which the rock in the film did.
Well, whatever it takes to get the British public interested in science, I suppose. I'm probably just being a boring science undergrad who doesn't like anyone enjoying something that I think only people with years of education can understand. Yet, I constantly bemoan the lack of science education and understanding in thie country. Can you spell hypocrite? (I can't, I had to use spellcheck)
The whole 'we've found kryptoinite!" thing though, seriously. It's not, is it? It's a substance with the same molecular composition as the FICTIONAL rock had, which it was probably given because nothing with that composition had been found yet. I love that one scientist has had to state "I'm afraid it's not green and it doesn't glow either - although it will react to ultraviolet light by fluorescing a pinkish-orange," because no doubt, someone would have thought it really was kryptonite. And it doesn't even contain Flourine, which the rock in the film did.
Well, whatever it takes to get the British public interested in science, I suppose. I'm probably just being a boring science undergrad who doesn't like anyone enjoying something that I think only people with years of education can understand. Yet, I constantly bemoan the lack of science education and understanding in thie country. Can you spell hypocrite? (I can't, I had to use spellcheck)
Thursday, April 19, 2007
In which I mention slightly risque subjects...
I just found an issue of Scarlet Magazine (cheap looking website, I could make that) which I bought about two years ago now (actually, my boyfriend at the time bought it: porn was one of his research interests. Genuinely.). It billed itself as this revolutionary magazine: "Scarlet will never patronise you or support tired stereotypes; men aren't all bastards, women can (and do) enjoy porn, and we don't all dream of being a size 10."
Never patronise? In the issue I have one of the articles is entitled: "Men: are they really scared of commitment?'. In it, three men give their opinions on this. Apparently, yes they are. But just because they are scared women will make them listen to Robbie Williams and watch Friends instead of going to the pub. Right.
The 'Cliterature' (see what they did there?) we get supposedly steamy stories for women. I have no idea what woman is turned on by these, but they're laughable. Any story that refers to a man's genitilia using the word 'member' is hardly sexy, is it? And apparently we all want a tanned hunk with a six pack to dominate us. I've totally been going wrong there all these years, then. And some of the lines....I am not going to write them there, but, oh god. If anyone said any of them to me during sex, I'd laugh hysterically, pick up my clothes, and leave. Have a look at a sample here.
Moving on, the problem page PASSES JUDGEMENT on people writing in to ask about certain sex acts ("are you sure this still sounds like fun?"). Erm, very liberated there, yes. And there's an article on how, actually, giving oral sex isn't all that bad really, so women, try it! Wow, pretty daring there guys.
Add some pseudo femminism about taking back the word 'c**t' (am I the only girl not really offended by that? All it makes me think of is Simon Amstell: "I can't say that because I haven't go an umbrella." I happen to think there are bigger issues facing women today, and isn't this story a little old?) and I think I would quite like to burn this magazine in some kind of ritual.
Basically, it's 'porn' for women who think going to Anne Summer makes them a bit naughty, and who still identify with Bridget Jones is a role model (don't get me started on her. Lose some fucking weight and get a decent boyfriend! Or shut up.)
In a similar theme, I found facebook group (if you ever want to get really angry about something, just look at facebook) for 'Things men shouldn't do during sex' that has clearly been founded by a group of girls who think going on top is pretty crazy. Sadly, some of my friends are in it. What's wrong with girls today? Sex is fun, you know.
And fuck you Scarlet, I'd quite like to be a size ten as well.
Never patronise? In the issue I have one of the articles is entitled: "Men: are they really scared of commitment?'. In it, three men give their opinions on this. Apparently, yes they are. But just because they are scared women will make them listen to Robbie Williams and watch Friends instead of going to the pub. Right.
The 'Cliterature' (see what they did there?) we get supposedly steamy stories for women. I have no idea what woman is turned on by these, but they're laughable. Any story that refers to a man's genitilia using the word 'member' is hardly sexy, is it? And apparently we all want a tanned hunk with a six pack to dominate us. I've totally been going wrong there all these years, then. And some of the lines....I am not going to write them there, but, oh god. If anyone said any of them to me during sex, I'd laugh hysterically, pick up my clothes, and leave. Have a look at a sample here.
Moving on, the problem page PASSES JUDGEMENT on people writing in to ask about certain sex acts ("are you sure this still sounds like fun?"). Erm, very liberated there, yes. And there's an article on how, actually, giving oral sex isn't all that bad really, so women, try it! Wow, pretty daring there guys.
Add some pseudo femminism about taking back the word 'c**t' (am I the only girl not really offended by that? All it makes me think of is Simon Amstell: "I can't say that because I haven't go an umbrella." I happen to think there are bigger issues facing women today, and isn't this story a little old?) and I think I would quite like to burn this magazine in some kind of ritual.
Basically, it's 'porn' for women who think going to Anne Summer makes them a bit naughty, and who still identify with Bridget Jones is a role model (don't get me started on her. Lose some fucking weight and get a decent boyfriend! Or shut up.)
In a similar theme, I found facebook group (if you ever want to get really angry about something, just look at facebook) for 'Things men shouldn't do during sex' that has clearly been founded by a group of girls who think going on top is pretty crazy. Sadly, some of my friends are in it. What's wrong with girls today? Sex is fun, you know.
And fuck you Scarlet, I'd quite like to be a size ten as well.
"And in the past couple of years, researchers have produced strong evidence that this is indeed the case, that the decline of mitochondria determines when our bodies begin to crumble."
So said New Scientist in Janurary 2006. And I'm fairly certain this has been mentioned in my lectures before- I'm pretty familiar with the idea, at any rate.
However. I've just discovered (embaressing, considering it was published in Nature Genetics at the start of March- but you try reading any other papers when you've got nine years of the proteasome to cover. In fact, try reading anything other than the very, very specefic things you study: do you know how complex biochemistry is?) that Loeb et al did a study of mutations in mitochondria DNA in normal aging mice compared to mice that have a 500-fold greater mutation burden. They found that wild type mice did show an increase (aprox 11 fold) of mutations in mitochondrial DNA with age, the mutant mice showed no signs of accelerated ageing suggesting that the small amount of mutation in WT mice has no contribution to the ageing process. Interesting. I like it when something comes along to prove everyone wrong, as it constantly does with my subject with better and more accurat methods being developed all the time.
However- it needs to be pointed out that large deletions in mitochondrial DNA could still have an affect and that there is apparently evidence for this. This seems pretty interesting and might be something to look at when I've finished my dissertation.
So said New Scientist in Janurary 2006. And I'm fairly certain this has been mentioned in my lectures before- I'm pretty familiar with the idea, at any rate.
However. I've just discovered (embaressing, considering it was published in Nature Genetics at the start of March- but you try reading any other papers when you've got nine years of the proteasome to cover. In fact, try reading anything other than the very, very specefic things you study: do you know how complex biochemistry is?) that Loeb et al did a study of mutations in mitochondria DNA in normal aging mice compared to mice that have a 500-fold greater mutation burden. They found that wild type mice did show an increase (aprox 11 fold) of mutations in mitochondrial DNA with age, the mutant mice showed no signs of accelerated ageing suggesting that the small amount of mutation in WT mice has no contribution to the ageing process. Interesting. I like it when something comes along to prove everyone wrong, as it constantly does with my subject with better and more accurat methods being developed all the time.
However- it needs to be pointed out that large deletions in mitochondrial DNA could still have an affect and that there is apparently evidence for this. This seems pretty interesting and might be something to look at when I've finished my dissertation.
I was about to make a really emo post about having not realised it was 'Make Tammy feel stupid day' but having had a sleep and a talk to my dad (ok, it was just swapping jokes with my dad) I feel a lot better.
My mood was helped by the realisation that not only am I currently whizzing through papers that would have baffled me only a year ago, but I'm making connections between them an other papers as I read, catergorizing their importance in terms of the methods used and making my own conclusions about what needs to happen next. While doing this, I am also knitting myself a beautiful slouchy beret in raspberry (it's a raspberry beret!) chunky wool because I no longer need to look at my hands while I knit. I've fucked up the M1 increases a bit because I didn't bother reading exactly how to do them but I've decided to cover these up by knitting little black stars on dpns (I can so use dpns, I'm a genius) and attaching them to the the brim (which I have altered from the pattern so we'll see if it actually fits me)
And I've realised that the only person who ever really makes me feel stupid is me: I have so little faith in my own abilities that I'd much rather act stupid than ever express an opinion, just in case it's wrong. But I've decided I don't want to do that anymore. Everyone can think I'm an idiot if they want, at least I'll be happy.
I'm still feeling really angry about several issues, but the way to deal with this is probably to build something constructive out of the feeling rather than just sit and hate. Maybe I can fuel my dissertation and beret knitting entirely from my anger at organised religion, the media and the people coming into my cafe and assuming I'm a moron just because I work in a shop.
My mood was helped by the realisation that not only am I currently whizzing through papers that would have baffled me only a year ago, but I'm making connections between them an other papers as I read, catergorizing their importance in terms of the methods used and making my own conclusions about what needs to happen next. While doing this, I am also knitting myself a beautiful slouchy beret in raspberry (it's a raspberry beret!) chunky wool because I no longer need to look at my hands while I knit. I've fucked up the M1 increases a bit because I didn't bother reading exactly how to do them but I've decided to cover these up by knitting little black stars on dpns (I can so use dpns, I'm a genius) and attaching them to the the brim (which I have altered from the pattern so we'll see if it actually fits me)
And I've realised that the only person who ever really makes me feel stupid is me: I have so little faith in my own abilities that I'd much rather act stupid than ever express an opinion, just in case it's wrong. But I've decided I don't want to do that anymore. Everyone can think I'm an idiot if they want, at least I'll be happy.
I'm still feeling really angry about several issues, but the way to deal with this is probably to build something constructive out of the feeling rather than just sit and hate. Maybe I can fuel my dissertation and beret knitting entirely from my anger at organised religion, the media and the people coming into my cafe and assuming I'm a moron just because I work in a shop.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Things that are annoying me today:
♥ boys around campus wearing those 34/ length shorts. Stop it, you're not 14 and you're certainly not in Blink 182.
♥ My headphones. They are rubbish. I am badly missing my ridiculously large Sennheiser headphones, although I've found out that they are a LOT cheaper on Amazon than I originally paid for mine, so I might order some new ones.
♥ Not being able to get a macbook until after my exams as have realised I will just play with it and do no work.
♥ Being really, incredibly tired so that I'm really struggling to focus on my dissertation- I can't decide what to kepe in and what to leave out, my referencing is everywhere and I want a nap. But I am forcing myself to go on, and miss hollyoaks.
♥ It's sunny. I want to sit outside and nap in the sun, but work dictates otherwise.
I keep trying to write posts about religion, but getting too annoyed and angry to make sense. I also want to talk about a quote I read in the metro today about GM foods, but I don't have time to research. And I want to do some knitting, and sewing and tidy my room. Argh. Am in a good mood despite all this though, and my horrible headache.
♥ boys around campus wearing those 34/ length shorts. Stop it, you're not 14 and you're certainly not in Blink 182.
♥ My headphones. They are rubbish. I am badly missing my ridiculously large Sennheiser headphones, although I've found out that they are a LOT cheaper on Amazon than I originally paid for mine, so I might order some new ones.
♥ Not being able to get a macbook until after my exams as have realised I will just play with it and do no work.
♥ Being really, incredibly tired so that I'm really struggling to focus on my dissertation- I can't decide what to kepe in and what to leave out, my referencing is everywhere and I want a nap. But I am forcing myself to go on, and miss hollyoaks.
♥ It's sunny. I want to sit outside and nap in the sun, but work dictates otherwise.
I keep trying to write posts about religion, but getting too annoyed and angry to make sense. I also want to talk about a quote I read in the metro today about GM foods, but I don't have time to research. And I want to do some knitting, and sewing and tidy my room. Argh. Am in a good mood despite all this though, and my horrible headache.
Monday, April 16, 2007
spam spam spam
I've just discovered that Gal4 degradation (essential for function as an activator, which erm, it is and an example of how proteasome mediated turnover of activators can induce gene activation by various mechanisms) is regulated by the E3 ligase (adds ubiquitin to the substrate and marks for destruction) Grr1!!! How brilliant is that?
At this point it's worth adding that the RING finger domain in TFs stands for Really Interesting New Gene. No, seriously. It does. And SHH is Sonic Hedgehog Gene, which is involved in growth. And the scaramanga gene, that controls the development of breasts and therefore can somtimes go wrong, leading to third nipple formation etc (and I think it's been implicated in breast cancer pretty recently too) is named after the James Bond villan. Who had a third nipple.
And I've just found a paper called Uteroglobin Gene Transcription: What's the RUSH? (RUSH is the type of transcription factor involved.....oh dear. Genetics jokes are terrible.)
At this point it's worth adding that the RING finger domain in TFs stands for Really Interesting New Gene. No, seriously. It does. And SHH is Sonic Hedgehog Gene, which is involved in growth. And the scaramanga gene, that controls the development of breasts and therefore can somtimes go wrong, leading to third nipple formation etc (and I think it's been implicated in breast cancer pretty recently too) is named after the James Bond villan. Who had a third nipple.
And I've just found a paper called Uteroglobin Gene Transcription: What's the RUSH? (RUSH is the type of transcription factor involved.....oh dear. Genetics jokes are terrible.)
There is a light that never goes out
Something about using computers that aren't mine reminds me how much I hate my own. The screen is rubbish, it's noisy, it's slow and makes me angry. The new plan is to buy my macbook the day I hand my dissertation in, so that it arrives the next day which I have off work (I assume that as soon as it is in, I will be extremely drunk) and then I can play with it allll day.
Finals? What?
I've decided never to consume as much coffee as I did this morning again, it makes me go mad. I am quite tempted to give it up all together. I imagine it would help the anxiety and insomnia.
I've cheered myself up quite a lot from earlier. I think I need a few days just away from everything, so tonight I intend to tidy my room then lock myself in it. I've realised that I've got to stop being so dependent on everybody else for my emotional support- I can't even bring myself to log out of msn because I have to be talking to someone, and I check my phone obsessively every few seconds (I have to have it on silent because loud noises make me jump. Yes, really.) Still, admitting you have a problem is the first step and all that!
An amusing thing before I depart: I managed to realise my dress had riden right the way up to be showing my underwear to the world thanks to my backpack, and was sorting it out whilst still walking just as the automatic doors opened in front of me, hit me, and I fell over. Luckily, there was no one around. But it was a good image.
(Ok, one last amusing thing: I discovered today that La Senza do padded bras in a 36E! Why? I tried on on. I looked like a Dolly Parton tribute act. Career plan!)
Finals? What?
I've decided never to consume as much coffee as I did this morning again, it makes me go mad. I am quite tempted to give it up all together. I imagine it would help the anxiety and insomnia.
I've cheered myself up quite a lot from earlier. I think I need a few days just away from everything, so tonight I intend to tidy my room then lock myself in it. I've realised that I've got to stop being so dependent on everybody else for my emotional support- I can't even bring myself to log out of msn because I have to be talking to someone, and I check my phone obsessively every few seconds (I have to have it on silent because loud noises make me jump. Yes, really.) Still, admitting you have a problem is the first step and all that!
An amusing thing before I depart: I managed to realise my dress had riden right the way up to be showing my underwear to the world thanks to my backpack, and was sorting it out whilst still walking just as the automatic doors opened in front of me, hit me, and I fell over. Luckily, there was no one around. But it was a good image.
(Ok, one last amusing thing: I discovered today that La Senza do padded bras in a 36E! Why? I tried on on. I looked like a Dolly Parton tribute act. Career plan!)
Bloody Typical...
...I discovered that I could get a macbook for £549 from the Apple website (refubished) and try and buy it only to find my ex-housemate hasn't paid back the £200 she owes me so I can't. Damnit.
Ah well, really can't afford it right now anyway.
I'm bored, I don't want to do any work but I really really have to, I'm hungry but can't be bothered to make food, I have horrible period pains (what was I saying about loving being a girl?), I have no one to hug and I'm tired. This post was brought to you by the letter T, the number 21 and me being really, really grumpy.
Ah well, really can't afford it right now anyway.
I'm bored, I don't want to do any work but I really really have to, I'm hungry but can't be bothered to make food, I have horrible period pains (what was I saying about loving being a girl?), I have no one to hug and I'm tired. This post was brought to you by the letter T, the number 21 and me being really, really grumpy.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
On being a girl.
It's so hot that the only way I can get any work done is to sleep through most of the day and work at night. My room is an OVEN. I have also taken to working in a bikini- it's what all the best scientists do. I heard.
However, it does mean that it is hot enough to wear summer dresses outside and flash my tiger striped legs to the world. The art of fake tanning is one of the skills girls are meant to have that I just don't, along with plucking my eyebrows (tearing the hair out of your face with metal sticks? are you mad?) and walking in high heels. I am attempting to rectify this: I have Johnson's holiday skin, just plucked half of one eyebrow (I only have the tweezers from my dissection kit and they're not working so well) and tidying my room wearing heels.
And what is it about summer that turns some men into slavering idiots? I took a short walk to the corner shop and the amount of comments I got was insane. I'd say it serves me right for wearing a skimpy dress when I am not exactly small of chest but fuck off, I'll wear what I want and it's my right not to be harrassed for it. An incident that occured on wednesday night along these lines shook me up a bit, but I think I'm over it now. As my friend Kate said, it's a pretty pathetic time when a girl can't walk around after dark on her own without fear of being attacked.
On the subject of being a girl, I watched that 'Find the new pussycat doll' programme on T4 this morning. Is this what young women aspire to now? Dancing round half naked in a style that is really only designed to appeal to men? And it is all about men: there first single was all about trying to steal another girl's boyfriend- not exactly girl power is it? (Amusingly, on the same albulm is a song entitled "I don't need a man" and then followed by "I want you back". Make your mind up, dolls) It's like the new Avril Lavigne single (which Sarra Manning was recently unfairly slated for criticising. In it, Lavigne basically tells a boy to get rid of his girlfriend and go out with her instead. In the video, she is seen bullying the boy's poor girlfriend and it's just...horrible. A recent post on the LiveJournal community Blackcigarette discussed this, and the general state of girls in pop today and someone made a fantastic point about missing the Spice Girls.
No, seriously! Yeah, ok, they were a bit rubbish. But all their songs were about putting your friends first, loving other girls and never, ever letting men get in the way. Isn't this a better message than 'Hey, I'm hotter than your stupid girlfriend"? Bring back the Spice Girls, that's what I say. 90's pop just had so much of a more positive message.
Obviously, I am against the revival of Buffalo trainers and tiny Union Jack dresses.
I love being a girl. I'm not a rampant femminist. I just think that the sexes are equal (hell, everyone's equal) and can't everyone be judged on their own individual merits rather than their age/sex/race/whatever? It'd be nice to think of a time when you didn't have to 'come out' as gay and girls didn't feel they had to take their clothes off just to feel good about themselves but there you go. I am an eternal dreamer.
However, it does mean that it is hot enough to wear summer dresses outside and flash my tiger striped legs to the world. The art of fake tanning is one of the skills girls are meant to have that I just don't, along with plucking my eyebrows (tearing the hair out of your face with metal sticks? are you mad?) and walking in high heels. I am attempting to rectify this: I have Johnson's holiday skin, just plucked half of one eyebrow (I only have the tweezers from my dissection kit and they're not working so well) and tidying my room wearing heels.
And what is it about summer that turns some men into slavering idiots? I took a short walk to the corner shop and the amount of comments I got was insane. I'd say it serves me right for wearing a skimpy dress when I am not exactly small of chest but fuck off, I'll wear what I want and it's my right not to be harrassed for it. An incident that occured on wednesday night along these lines shook me up a bit, but I think I'm over it now. As my friend Kate said, it's a pretty pathetic time when a girl can't walk around after dark on her own without fear of being attacked.
On the subject of being a girl, I watched that 'Find the new pussycat doll' programme on T4 this morning. Is this what young women aspire to now? Dancing round half naked in a style that is really only designed to appeal to men? And it is all about men: there first single was all about trying to steal another girl's boyfriend- not exactly girl power is it? (Amusingly, on the same albulm is a song entitled "I don't need a man" and then followed by "I want you back". Make your mind up, dolls) It's like the new Avril Lavigne single (which Sarra Manning was recently unfairly slated for criticising. In it, Lavigne basically tells a boy to get rid of his girlfriend and go out with her instead. In the video, she is seen bullying the boy's poor girlfriend and it's just...horrible. A recent post on the LiveJournal community Blackcigarette discussed this, and the general state of girls in pop today and someone made a fantastic point about missing the Spice Girls.
No, seriously! Yeah, ok, they were a bit rubbish. But all their songs were about putting your friends first, loving other girls and never, ever letting men get in the way. Isn't this a better message than 'Hey, I'm hotter than your stupid girlfriend"? Bring back the Spice Girls, that's what I say. 90's pop just had so much of a more positive message.
Obviously, I am against the revival of Buffalo trainers and tiny Union Jack dresses.
I love being a girl. I'm not a rampant femminist. I just think that the sexes are equal (hell, everyone's equal) and can't everyone be judged on their own individual merits rather than their age/sex/race/whatever? It'd be nice to think of a time when you didn't have to 'come out' as gay and girls didn't feel they had to take their clothes off just to feel good about themselves but there you go. I am an eternal dreamer.
Today, I have had my faith in people restored (Not that it had ever really gone, being an eternal optimist and romantic and all). I was (once again) locked out of my house and attempting to break in when two people from across the road came over to check I was ok. They ended up taking me back to theirs for tea and chats for quite a while until someone was available to let me back in. How lovely. So many people went past while I was frantically trying to get in and just laughed or ignored me. I think I shall take them some flowers later.
Random acts of kindness really make my day. Even someone smiling or saying hi in the street works. An elderly gentleman tipped his hat at me the other day, that was enough to make me happy for weeks really. I strongly encourage other people to do the same (not the hat thing, more the just being nice)
In other news, in Ilkeston yesterday I got a huge amount of lovely wool for very cheap from the market and am now deciding what it will be made into after my dissertation is handed in. I still don't have much of a sense of panic about that, but it IS getting somewhere. I also got Terry Pratchett books for cheap, a long pink silk dress that I'm going to take up for 50p(!) and some green high heels that are very, very hot. When I have free time again, I'm fully intending to use this blog to document my sewing/knitting adventures. Aren't you all lucky.
Also, a slightly hillarious book called 'The Case for Creationism' (proof there is a God for a whole 30p) which basically says life is too complex for there not to be a creator, and provides reasons for the earth not being as old as science says it is. It's also slagging off scientific methods it clearly doesn't quite get, and any book which is claiming to be scientific and then cites Genesis as a reference has some faults, in my eyes. Anyway, it's a present for Alex so we'll see what he makes of it. I've only scanned it so far.
I feel I should also add I am actually a Christian...but a scientist as well.
And onwards with the proteasome!
Random acts of kindness really make my day. Even someone smiling or saying hi in the street works. An elderly gentleman tipped his hat at me the other day, that was enough to make me happy for weeks really. I strongly encourage other people to do the same (not the hat thing, more the just being nice)
In other news, in Ilkeston yesterday I got a huge amount of lovely wool for very cheap from the market and am now deciding what it will be made into after my dissertation is handed in. I still don't have much of a sense of panic about that, but it IS getting somewhere. I also got Terry Pratchett books for cheap, a long pink silk dress that I'm going to take up for 50p(!) and some green high heels that are very, very hot. When I have free time again, I'm fully intending to use this blog to document my sewing/knitting adventures. Aren't you all lucky.
Also, a slightly hillarious book called 'The Case for Creationism' (proof there is a God for a whole 30p) which basically says life is too complex for there not to be a creator, and provides reasons for the earth not being as old as science says it is. It's also slagging off scientific methods it clearly doesn't quite get, and any book which is claiming to be scientific and then cites Genesis as a reference has some faults, in my eyes. Anyway, it's a present for Alex so we'll see what he makes of it. I've only scanned it so far.
I feel I should also add I am actually a Christian...but a scientist as well.
And onwards with the proteasome!
Friday, April 13, 2007
What I did today
I've had an interesting day for finding out what people think about me today.
♥ My friend Andy rung me to ask me if I had face paints (?) because I'm 'the kind of person who would'
♥ My little sister sent me a text saying she's re-reading HGTTG and I remind her of Ford Prefect from the line 'Are you in love? If so, is it with someone who knows where the gin bottle is?'. In her words 'It's you and your perpetual quest for gin!'
♥ A housemate just informed me that "also, Belle and Sebastian are always in my head lately...my whole life has a twee soundtrack and I'm like, so this is what it's like to be Tammy."
So, I'm seen as a twee, quirky, alcoholic. Could be worse I suppose.
I got through another subsection of chapter two today. I'm looking at the way the 26s proteasome controls gene activation through protein turnover which is a positive rather than negative (such as protein amount) regulation. Meaning, the more proteolysis there is, the more active the gene is because of the turnover. There are two mechanisms for this: 'timer' and 'black widow' (see, genetics is fun, kids). These basically state that the monoubiquitinylated form of the activator is somehow (and no one is sure how) more potent than the polyubiuitylated form. The monoubiuitylated activator is NOT targeted for degradation by the proteasome (it has been shown that you need at least 4 Lys48 linked Ub molcules for that) but can activate gene transcription until the polyubituitin chain has formed, at which point the activator is less potent and acts as a competetive inhibitor for the promotor and so is destroyed by the proteasome. There is also the secondary timer model, which I haven't fully grasped yet and need to go over a few more times (I'm struggling to follow the paper proposing it in general, I blame the writer) So anyway, that's the proposed mechanism. I now need to look more closely at examples of this: Gcn4, Gal4, Skp2 etc etc etc....fun times ahead. Then I can look at the regulation through RNA Pol II (which I think can be both proteolytic and non proteolytic, interestingly enough), and the overlap of transcriptional activation domains and degrons ('m not sure entirely where this one fits in at the moment) and then onto Non-proteolytic: chromatin restructurin, 19s subunit....etc. And then try and fit NF-kB in somewhere. I'm hoping it will all make sense as I write it, it pretty much has done so far.
I also finished off Rpn4 as an example of the regulation through protein amount. Interesting one that: it stimulates transcription of some proteasome subunits but is also regulated through the proteasome. Apparently a lot of activators for proteasome subunits are: I really don't know how I'm going to fit all this information in.
I'm also wondering if the protein turnover being high results in increased gene trasncription (for some genes) is anything to do with the possibility that the RNA Pol II holoenzyme reloads after every firing of transcription (some very highly transcribed genes fire every few seconds). If this is the case, the high turnover would result in a constant pool of 'active' monoubiuinated activators to reform the holonenzyme at the promotor and replace the 'used' poly-ubiquinated activators which are then destroyed as they are competetive inhibitors. Hmm...I might be onto something there. I always get quite excited when I have an independent thought. Must look that up. I have absolutly no idea why mono-ub activators would be more potent than poly-ub though, and I'm sure I'm probably meant to suggest a mechanism. Phosphorylation? Anyone?
That was probably horribly innaccurate as I forgot to email myself my work from uni today and so I had to write it from (poor) memory. Also, the grammer was terrible. But there you go, that's what I did today.
♥ My friend Andy rung me to ask me if I had face paints (?) because I'm 'the kind of person who would'
♥ My little sister sent me a text saying she's re-reading HGTTG and I remind her of Ford Prefect from the line 'Are you in love? If so, is it with someone who knows where the gin bottle is?'. In her words 'It's you and your perpetual quest for gin!'
♥ A housemate just informed me that "also, Belle and Sebastian are always in my head lately...my whole life has a twee soundtrack and I'm like, so this is what it's like to be Tammy."
So, I'm seen as a twee, quirky, alcoholic. Could be worse I suppose.
I got through another subsection of chapter two today. I'm looking at the way the 26s proteasome controls gene activation through protein turnover which is a positive rather than negative (such as protein amount) regulation. Meaning, the more proteolysis there is, the more active the gene is because of the turnover. There are two mechanisms for this: 'timer' and 'black widow' (see, genetics is fun, kids). These basically state that the monoubiquitinylated form of the activator is somehow (and no one is sure how) more potent than the polyubiuitylated form. The monoubiuitylated activator is NOT targeted for degradation by the proteasome (it has been shown that you need at least 4 Lys48 linked Ub molcules for that) but can activate gene transcription until the polyubituitin chain has formed, at which point the activator is less potent and acts as a competetive inhibitor for the promotor and so is destroyed by the proteasome. There is also the secondary timer model, which I haven't fully grasped yet and need to go over a few more times (I'm struggling to follow the paper proposing it in general, I blame the writer) So anyway, that's the proposed mechanism. I now need to look more closely at examples of this: Gcn4, Gal4, Skp2 etc etc etc....fun times ahead. Then I can look at the regulation through RNA Pol II (which I think can be both proteolytic and non proteolytic, interestingly enough), and the overlap of transcriptional activation domains and degrons ('m not sure entirely where this one fits in at the moment) and then onto Non-proteolytic: chromatin restructurin, 19s subunit....etc. And then try and fit NF-kB in somewhere. I'm hoping it will all make sense as I write it, it pretty much has done so far.
I also finished off Rpn4 as an example of the regulation through protein amount. Interesting one that: it stimulates transcription of some proteasome subunits but is also regulated through the proteasome. Apparently a lot of activators for proteasome subunits are: I really don't know how I'm going to fit all this information in.
I'm also wondering if the protein turnover being high results in increased gene trasncription (for some genes) is anything to do with the possibility that the RNA Pol II holoenzyme reloads after every firing of transcription (some very highly transcribed genes fire every few seconds). If this is the case, the high turnover would result in a constant pool of 'active' monoubiuinated activators to reform the holonenzyme at the promotor and replace the 'used' poly-ubiquinated activators which are then destroyed as they are competetive inhibitors. Hmm...I might be onto something there. I always get quite excited when I have an independent thought. Must look that up. I have absolutly no idea why mono-ub activators would be more potent than poly-ub though, and I'm sure I'm probably meant to suggest a mechanism. Phosphorylation? Anyone?
That was probably horribly innaccurate as I forgot to email myself my work from uni today and so I had to write it from (poor) memory. Also, the grammer was terrible. But there you go, that's what I did today.
It is vitally important that someone stops me from going out and buying a powerbook and reminding me that I need that money for rent. I've wanted a mac for ages, and have decided now that I'm actually going to get one. The sensible option would be to save up and get one next month (also, sell my desktop) but I'm mostly convinced that having one right NOW would make me do my dissertation (which I am actually doing. But I'd do it better on a new computer). I really have no common sense with money at all.
I also have an annoying amount of things I want to write about that are in no way related to biochemistry (ie, fun) but I really do need to do some work. Care packages can be sent to the QMC library, I keep forgetting to do important things like sleep and feed myself. Is there a programme that will remind me?
I also have an annoying amount of things I want to write about that are in no way related to biochemistry (ie, fun) but I really do need to do some work. Care packages can be sent to the QMC library, I keep forgetting to do important things like sleep and feed myself. Is there a programme that will remind me?
Thursday, April 12, 2007
A role for the proteasome in gene activation for non-nuclear receptors
Isn't it pretty? That's the 26s proteasome, subject of my dissertation. I am writing a literature review covering the role for the proteasome in gene activation by non-nuclear receptors. It's pretty interesting stuff: although the proteasome is mainly involved in the proteolysis of 'unwanted' proteins in the cell (and therefor has obvious roles in regulation of gene activation via such means as controlling activator amount/turnover, RNA Pol II regulation, removal of co-repressors etc) there has also been increasing evidence over the last few years that there is a non-proteolytic role too. Most interesting of these claims is that the 19s subunit of the 26s proteasome can be involved in regulation of gene activation independent of the 20s subunit.
I was intending to write more about this but I'm so tired I can't focus and I doubt it's terribly interesting to anyone who isn't (inexplicably) fascinated with the UPS system. I find it quite exciting, but I'm pretty boring.
No, currently my tired mind is much more concerned with whether my fake tan is going to smear, why plucking my eyebrows is SO painful and why there are lots of scratches on my left calf that I really don't remember happening. Also, if I will get enough work done tomorrow and saturday to be able to go out as it's my friend's last weekend in Nottingham before an enforced stint at a hospital somewhere in rural Lincolnshire. This is what you get for trying to have a career, people. Let it be a lesson to all of you.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Right then, it's war.
And I thought my copy of Brock's Microbiology would never be used. I just smacked a wasp to death with it.
How said wasp got into my room, in which the windows and doors are shut, is a mystery of Jonathon Creek-like proportions. I can only assume that my long harboured suspscions that the wasps are ganging up on me and waiting to launch some kind of stealth attack is true. Hmm. Conviniently, I have many large, heavy, barely used text books to fight back with.
And do I leave it's body there as a warning to others, or will it just further anger the wasp community? Is it too late to win them over now?
How said wasp got into my room, in which the windows and doors are shut, is a mystery of Jonathon Creek-like proportions. I can only assume that my long harboured suspscions that the wasps are ganging up on me and waiting to launch some kind of stealth attack is true. Hmm. Conviniently, I have many large, heavy, barely used text books to fight back with.
And do I leave it's body there as a warning to others, or will it just further anger the wasp community? Is it too late to win them over now?
Monday, April 09, 2007
Hey look at me, I'm dancin'!
Thanks to the following clip, I am deeply annoyed that I never started watching Life On Mars.
Genius. I might have to invest in the box set, at some point when I'm not spending all my money on vintage dresses and fizzy drinks that come in nice bottles.
Something that I certainly will be investing in is the new Singalong edition of the classic musical Bugsy Malone. Set in prohibition America, the cast is entirely made up of under 16 year olds with little or no acting experience. (Most haven't followed up a career in film, with the notable exception of Scott Baio and Jodie Foster) All the singing was done by adults, including the film's writer, and lip synched by the children. The weapons are splurge guns that shoot custard, the cars are powered by pedaling furiously and the final number involves everyone being apparently 'killed' and then coming back to life in order to make friends and sing the final number:
What's not to love? I think most people of my generation appeared in some high-school performance of the show: I was a dancer in an out of school drama society, cast at the last minute because 1) I could dance well and act and sing a bit and 2) I was the same size as the girl who dropped out so I could just use her costumes. Which incidentally, consisted of sequined hotpants and tiny halterneck. Ah yes, I had a glittering (literally. LOL) career in theatre. Sometimes I ask myself why I gave it all up for science.
I purchased High Society for a bargain £4 in Asda today (though was disappointed by their usually fabulous clothing range) and intend to settle down and watch that tonight. If you haven't seen it, I strongly suggest that you do. It's a musical remake of the film ThePhiladelphia Story and stars Grace Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby and Louis Armstrong as himself. Grace Kelly looks absolutely amazing in it and makes me despair of the movie stars of today who
can't act, never mind sing and dance as well. They certainly don't
display any of the grace shown by stars then.
I hate this 'instant celebrity' culture of today, where everyone gets their fifteen minutes of fame, or even longer. I was hoping the public crucifixion of Jade Goody would bring an end to it all, but I think I was a little too optimistic there. I despise anyone who is famous for doing nothing. All Goody did was appear on Big
Brother and prove herself to be a complete moron. And the British public celebrated this! We do so love an idiot in this country. She (and most other reality TV stars) represents everything about people that I hate. I don't understand why we so desperately want to watch very dull people live out their very dull lives on our TV screens, rather than having a life ourselves. Why can't we idolise someone worthwhile for a change? Possibly, there's no one left worth idolising.
"They took the idols and smashed them, the Fairbankses, the Gilberts, the Valentinos! And who've we got now? Some nobodies! "
I have a horrible suspicion that all the best people are dying and nobody is replacing them, and so far I seem to be being proved right.
On a cheerier note, since my 15 year old sister came out a few weeks ago I seem to have developed some sort of sympathy Gay Pride which is a little odd, considering that I'm straight. Perhaps I just wish I belonged to some kind of minority group that I could have solidarity with. As a white, lower middle class, well educated female (well, I've had a good education. Whether or not I've taken any good out of it is another question), all I've got is feminism and I'm not even very good at that, having recently announced that I want to be a housewife (though in my opinion, feminism is about women doing what they want, and not denying any traditional female roles. Cos erm, isn't that basically trying to be a man? But this is something to
expand on another time) I like the idea of being a rebel, a student activist, but I'm far too English and don't like complaining. Wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone. I'll take what I'm given with a stiff upper lip, and would anyone like some tea?
Genius. I might have to invest in the box set, at some point when I'm not spending all my money on vintage dresses and fizzy drinks that come in nice bottles.
Something that I certainly will be investing in is the new Singalong edition of the classic musical Bugsy Malone. Set in prohibition America, the cast is entirely made up of under 16 year olds with little or no acting experience. (Most haven't followed up a career in film, with the notable exception of Scott Baio and Jodie Foster) All the singing was done by adults, including the film's writer, and lip synched by the children. The weapons are splurge guns that shoot custard, the cars are powered by pedaling furiously and the final number involves everyone being apparently 'killed' and then coming back to life in order to make friends and sing the final number:
What's not to love? I think most people of my generation appeared in some high-school performance of the show: I was a dancer in an out of school drama society, cast at the last minute because 1) I could dance well and act and sing a bit and 2) I was the same size as the girl who dropped out so I could just use her costumes. Which incidentally, consisted of sequined hotpants and tiny halterneck. Ah yes, I had a glittering (literally. LOL) career in theatre. Sometimes I ask myself why I gave it all up for science.
I purchased High Society for a bargain £4 in Asda today (though was disappointed by their usually fabulous clothing range) and intend to settle down and watch that tonight. If you haven't seen it, I strongly suggest that you do. It's a musical remake of the film ThePhiladelphia Story and stars Grace Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby and Louis Armstrong as himself. Grace Kelly looks absolutely amazing in it and makes me despair of the movie stars of today who
can't act, never mind sing and dance as well. They certainly don't
display any of the grace shown by stars then.
I hate this 'instant celebrity' culture of today, where everyone gets their fifteen minutes of fame, or even longer. I was hoping the public crucifixion of Jade Goody would bring an end to it all, but I think I was a little too optimistic there. I despise anyone who is famous for doing nothing. All Goody did was appear on Big
Brother and prove herself to be a complete moron. And the British public celebrated this! We do so love an idiot in this country. She (and most other reality TV stars) represents everything about people that I hate. I don't understand why we so desperately want to watch very dull people live out their very dull lives on our TV screens, rather than having a life ourselves. Why can't we idolise someone worthwhile for a change? Possibly, there's no one left worth idolising.
"They took the idols and smashed them, the Fairbankses, the Gilberts, the Valentinos! And who've we got now? Some nobodies! "
I have a horrible suspicion that all the best people are dying and nobody is replacing them, and so far I seem to be being proved right.
On a cheerier note, since my 15 year old sister came out a few weeks ago I seem to have developed some sort of sympathy Gay Pride which is a little odd, considering that I'm straight. Perhaps I just wish I belonged to some kind of minority group that I could have solidarity with. As a white, lower middle class, well educated female (well, I've had a good education. Whether or not I've taken any good out of it is another question), all I've got is feminism and I'm not even very good at that, having recently announced that I want to be a housewife (though in my opinion, feminism is about women doing what they want, and not denying any traditional female roles. Cos erm, isn't that basically trying to be a man? But this is something to
expand on another time) I like the idea of being a rebel, a student activist, but I'm far too English and don't like complaining. Wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone. I'll take what I'm given with a stiff upper lip, and would anyone like some tea?
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Trust me, I'm a scientist
I do so enjoy fake science on adverts for beauty products. An especial favourite at the moment is the Nivea Visage DNAage range. Apparently it renews your cells! Amazing. And how does it perform this miraculous task? Well, according to the website:
"Our DNA is the base for every cellular renewal process. It's integrity is therefore essential for healthy, younger looking skin. With age, the DNA's own renewal capacity declines and cell damage accumulates.
Leading scientists at NIVEA Laboratires developed an innovative Anti-Age skincare system to reduce DNA damage in your skin whilst promoting healthy skin production"
And then:
"All of them contain the powerful combination of Folic Acid and Creatine to stimulate cell renewal and help protect the skin cells' DNA against further external damage."
Powerful combination? Many breakfast cereals are fortified with folic acid anyway, and creatine naturally occurs in your body! Pretty far out stuff. And 'innovative Anti-Age skincare'? Folic Acid was first synthesised in 1946 and Creatine was identified in 18 fucking 32! This isn't new stuff.
So what do these so-called 'innovative' ingredients actually do? Folate is necessary for DNA replication and the production of new cells (it's particularly important in times of high cell growth, which is why it is taken by pregnant women). Creatine, by way of conversion to/from creatine phosphate, keeps the ATP/ADP ratio in the cell high which ensures that there is enough free energy in the form of ATP present in the cell. We get some of our creatine from food (mostly meat) but the amount synthesized by the liver is enough for most every day activity. According to Nivea, the creatine in their moisturiser gives skin cells the energy to keep renewing. Also, it apparently protects the DNA from external damage. I'd love to know by what mechanism.
I find it highly difficult to believe that by rubbing substances already found in the human body directly onto your face, you're going to stop or even reverse the aging process but then, what would I know? I'm only a biochemist. Nivea assure us that they've tested this on cell lines and shown it to be effective: I for one would love to see the research. If there was actually something that RENEWED skin cells, wouldn't scientists already be using it on people with skin diseases?
Even better, while browsing the Nivea website, I discovered that they also sell an Age Reversal product! Nivea have discovered how to reverse the aging process? They've kept that one quiet. Apparently it's all done with vitamin C, which we all get over our RDA of anyway and it's mostly excreted by the body (we showed this in an experiment in my bloody first year. It's pretty basic stuff). Silly us, we should have all been rubbing it on our faces. If you kept using it, would you keep reversing aging until you ceased to exist? Scary stuff. I for one am not going to risk it.
I'm getting increasingly annoyed by the beauty industry bombarding women (and it is mainly women) with baffling science in order to sell products. The average woman they market these ads at will probably not have a science background and be easily convinced by a bit of techno babble. It irritates me almost as much as the way tabloid newspapers tend to report science news - especially anything to do with genetics - as if it's some mythical field that no one is ever really going to understand. And then we wonder why the general public are against things like genetic engineering and GM foods? The resources available to them to learn about these things are pretty poor, and usually fairly biased. The recent Channel 4 programme on genetic engineering in animals was irritating too- the adverts made it look as if us wacky scientists were playing God and messing about with nature in ways we didn't understand. It was almost as if it was advertising a horror film, never mind something that is so hugely important to fighting many illnesses.
And don't even get me started on animal rights protesters. Yes, us crazy scientists spend all our time doing things like growing ears on mice because it's really, really fun and in no way incredibly difficult or important.
Something else that has deeply annoyed me recently is the campaigns by both Domestos and Fairy. Fairy were giving away free manicure kits with their bottles, and Domestos were giving away pink aprons. I argued that this was enforcing the gender stereotype that only women ever do any cleaning. My mum has just told me that I am enforcing the gender stereotype that only women would want pink aprons and manicure kits. I guess I can't win.
And in conclusion, two questions. The first: why is it much easier to work on a laptop on a sofa than it is on a desktop? My 10yr old sister informs me it's because you're more comfortable and relaxed so you can concentrate better. I think she's right. (incidentally, I've been delighted to come home and discover that she's developed a caffeine habit to rival my own. I must stop drinking it at weird times of night, although for the next fortnight I fully intend to give up on sleep whilst writing my dissertation)
Secondly, what programme is it that will write my bibliography for me? And would anyone like to email me a literature review so that I know what one looks like? I wish I'd actually met with my supervisor at some point over the last year..
"Our DNA is the base for every cellular renewal process. It's integrity is therefore essential for healthy, younger looking skin. With age, the DNA's own renewal capacity declines and cell damage accumulates.
Leading scientists at NIVEA Laboratires developed an innovative Anti-Age skincare system to reduce DNA damage in your skin whilst promoting healthy skin production"
And then:
"All of them contain the powerful combination of Folic Acid and Creatine to stimulate cell renewal and help protect the skin cells' DNA against further external damage."
Powerful combination? Many breakfast cereals are fortified with folic acid anyway, and creatine naturally occurs in your body! Pretty far out stuff. And 'innovative Anti-Age skincare'? Folic Acid was first synthesised in 1946 and Creatine was identified in 18 fucking 32! This isn't new stuff.
So what do these so-called 'innovative' ingredients actually do? Folate is necessary for DNA replication and the production of new cells (it's particularly important in times of high cell growth, which is why it is taken by pregnant women). Creatine, by way of conversion to/from creatine phosphate, keeps the ATP/ADP ratio in the cell high which ensures that there is enough free energy in the form of ATP present in the cell. We get some of our creatine from food (mostly meat) but the amount synthesized by the liver is enough for most every day activity. According to Nivea, the creatine in their moisturiser gives skin cells the energy to keep renewing. Also, it apparently protects the DNA from external damage. I'd love to know by what mechanism.
I find it highly difficult to believe that by rubbing substances already found in the human body directly onto your face, you're going to stop or even reverse the aging process but then, what would I know? I'm only a biochemist. Nivea assure us that they've tested this on cell lines and shown it to be effective: I for one would love to see the research. If there was actually something that RENEWED skin cells, wouldn't scientists already be using it on people with skin diseases?
Even better, while browsing the Nivea website, I discovered that they also sell an Age Reversal product! Nivea have discovered how to reverse the aging process? They've kept that one quiet. Apparently it's all done with vitamin C, which we all get over our RDA of anyway and it's mostly excreted by the body (we showed this in an experiment in my bloody first year. It's pretty basic stuff). Silly us, we should have all been rubbing it on our faces. If you kept using it, would you keep reversing aging until you ceased to exist? Scary stuff. I for one am not going to risk it.
I'm getting increasingly annoyed by the beauty industry bombarding women (and it is mainly women) with baffling science in order to sell products. The average woman they market these ads at will probably not have a science background and be easily convinced by a bit of techno babble. It irritates me almost as much as the way tabloid newspapers tend to report science news - especially anything to do with genetics - as if it's some mythical field that no one is ever really going to understand. And then we wonder why the general public are against things like genetic engineering and GM foods? The resources available to them to learn about these things are pretty poor, and usually fairly biased. The recent Channel 4 programme on genetic engineering in animals was irritating too- the adverts made it look as if us wacky scientists were playing God and messing about with nature in ways we didn't understand. It was almost as if it was advertising a horror film, never mind something that is so hugely important to fighting many illnesses.
And don't even get me started on animal rights protesters. Yes, us crazy scientists spend all our time doing things like growing ears on mice because it's really, really fun and in no way incredibly difficult or important.
Something else that has deeply annoyed me recently is the campaigns by both Domestos and Fairy. Fairy were giving away free manicure kits with their bottles, and Domestos were giving away pink aprons. I argued that this was enforcing the gender stereotype that only women ever do any cleaning. My mum has just told me that I am enforcing the gender stereotype that only women would want pink aprons and manicure kits. I guess I can't win.
And in conclusion, two questions. The first: why is it much easier to work on a laptop on a sofa than it is on a desktop? My 10yr old sister informs me it's because you're more comfortable and relaxed so you can concentrate better. I think she's right. (incidentally, I've been delighted to come home and discover that she's developed a caffeine habit to rival my own. I must stop drinking it at weird times of night, although for the next fortnight I fully intend to give up on sleep whilst writing my dissertation)
Secondly, what programme is it that will write my bibliography for me? And would anyone like to email me a literature review so that I know what one looks like? I wish I'd actually met with my supervisor at some point over the last year..
Thursday, April 05, 2007
We interrupt the self pity to bring you this breaking news...
..Strawberry flavoured cola is the greatest thing I have ever, ever tasted. It's like sex in a bottle. A really pretty, old fashioned looking bottle.
Which reminds me, I'm searching the net for picnic baskets. THE must have accessory this summer. In my mind.
Which reminds me, I'm searching the net for picnic baskets. THE must have accessory this summer. In my mind.
And while I'm in a bad mood...
Current trends I love but will never be able to pull off due to not being a supermodel:
♥ High waisted shorts. In fact, tiny shorts in general. Being wide of hip and not exactly slender of leg, these are never going to look good on me.
♥ The prada-style over the knee socks. I've already been told they look a bit silly on me, and I certainly don't have the legs to wear them with a skirt.
♥ Those pretty smock style dresses. I go in quite a lot in the middle. These dresses don't.
Also, I think I might secretly like dungarees. There's no hope for me anymore...
♥ High waisted shorts. In fact, tiny shorts in general. Being wide of hip and not exactly slender of leg, these are never going to look good on me.
♥ The prada-style over the knee socks. I've already been told they look a bit silly on me, and I certainly don't have the legs to wear them with a skirt.
♥ Those pretty smock style dresses. I go in quite a lot in the middle. These dresses don't.
Also, I think I might secretly like dungarees. There's no hope for me anymore...
Dramatic sigh
I can tell I'm in a bad mood when even browsing the internet for shoes fails to cheer me up. But who can blame me, when office are trying to sell me things like this.I'm pretty sure you could get the same effect by wrapping gaffa tap round your feet, but there you go. Perhaps I'm just in a bad mood.Luckily, I have been slightly cheered up by several things. The first being the decidely non-clothing related cappucino flavoured ice cream. Thank God those all forgiving smock dresses (which I have been reliably informed do nothing for me) are in fashion, that's all I can say. Also, I notice that topshop.com now has an entire section of it's website devoted to playsuits. The fact that this trend has refused to die out points to only one thing: someone is buying them. My mission in life is now to find this person (there can't be more than one. Surely?) and ask them, well, why? First stop: Saturday night at The Rescue Rooms.
And finally, this:
Shoppers broke the door down before the new Oxford Street Primark had even opened. Apparently, at 6pm this evening people were still queueing around the block to get in, regardless of the fact that there was probably only one odd knee sock and the top half of a size 8 leopard print bikini left. The fact that there are several other Primarks in London all carrying the same stock has obviously been lost on these people. Perhaps it's the thrill of the hunt: there's nothing quite like a bargain you've had to stamp on 15 other people to get. Even if it's not in your size, or colour, and you'll never actually wear it: it was cheap!
And on that note, I'm off. If anyone wishes to rescue me from my crippling boredom, distractions are more than welcome.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Basket Case
Whatever one has to say about Topshop of late, at least they've been giving us something to laugh at in these bleak times of essay deadlines and international unrest. Feeling sad? Just browse topshop.com and feel instantly better about life's problems! Take this plastic basket, currently retailing at a fiver. I think it's cute. Mostly because it appears to have been stolen from a small child's supermarket playset. One can only imagine the designer sitting at home, racking their brain for inspiration, when their small child tries to make them play 'shops'. Lightbulb! Actually, being inspired by children might explain a lot of Topshop's offerings of late, such as the playsuit (presstuds in places there really shouldn't be presstuds) and the bumbag, both of which appear to be making an ill advised comeback. I do realise that nineties fashion is inexplicablely popular again (I blame Nu-rave. All those bright colours, and drugs), but when will people realise that not everything about that decade was good? Or, erm, anything for that matter. And it's not just in fashion! Take That have reformed! What next, Menswear? I'm sorry. No one should joke about things like that.
The other slightly unsettling thing about this "bag", apart from the fact that it would make you look like you were holding it for the kids you were babysitting, is that anyone could see what was in there and easily make off with it. Innocent mistake, or cunning plan by Topshop to steal a lot of fifteen year olds Ipods? You heard it here first kids.
Of course, the best thing about the nightmarish visions Topshop.com dredges up is that some deluded fashion victim somewhere is going to think they're a good idea. And wear them, while the rest of us laugh. Unless of course, Menswear do reform, which would mean dark days ahead for everyone. (Whilst 'researching' this post, I discovered that the guitarist from Menswear now manages Bloc Party. No wonder I hate them!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)