The phrase “four-letter word” doesn’t exactly convey a positive connotation, does it? It’s a phrase that conjures up words that cause censors to bleep and mothers to scold.
If you accidentally bang your thumb with a hammer you’re liable to let slip one of those four-letter words. If you’re a comic working blue your monologue will be liberally spiced with some of those four-letter words led lights china suppliers. Some folks even believe that an overuse of words from that reviled group might earn you permanent and eternal residence in a place that is one of those four-letter words.
But in spite of the connotation of the phrase, not all four-letter words are, well, “four-letter words.” Many words composed of four letters are perfectly honorable etymological citizens. And some four-letter words exist in sort of a gray zone, where some believe them to be evil, and others consider them to be perfectly innocent and respectable words.
One such word is Xmas.
X-ing Out Christ? Not so Much…
Xmas is a word that will evoke quite a reaction from some folks.
It’s understandable. After all, the traditional meaning of Christmas is under attack in many modern facets of society. So much so that Christmas is no longer even recognized officially as Christmas by many organizations, both private and public.
Many boards of education, for example, no longer designate time off for a Christmas break. Instead, it’s now a holiday break or a winter break. Businesses instruct employees to greet customers with “season’s greetings” rather than “merry Christmas.” Many local governments no longer permit Christmas-themed displays such as nativities on public properties, and no longer allow the word “Christmas” to be used in association with public festivities such as parades and celebrations.
So it’s understandable 4w LED e14 ses light bulb that Christmas enthusiasts who support the traditional meaning of the holiday are a bit defensive.
And for that reason, Xmas has been dumped into the “bad” four-letter word group, at least for some. That’s because many perceive the ‘X’ in Xmas to represent an attempt to eliminate Christ from the holiday.
But nothing could be farther from the truth.
The word “Xmas” has been around for centuries. Its roots predate modern attempts to morph Christmas toward non-traditional values by hundreds of years. The ‘X’ in Xmas represents the Greek letter ‘chi,’ the first letter of the Greek word for Christ. The ‘X’ is simply short for Christ.
So for hundreds of years, the word Xmas has quite literally meant Christ-mass. Rather than excluding Christ, the ‘X’ implicitly includes Christ.
A Good Word Gone Bad? Meanings of words change over the years wholesale e27 LED bulb – sometimes quite dramatically. And perhaps for the word Xmas, the negative connotation that has begun to become associated with it will never be overcome. For many, Xmas has become a bona fide “four-letter word.”
But for others, the negative view of Xmas might be considered an example of the unfair denigration of a perfectly acceptable word. Oh, the injustice!
2014年6月23日星期一
2014年6月10日星期二
Melissa McCarthy Is Just Like Every Other Plus-Size Woman: Searching for Cute Clothes
When you Google Melissa McCarthy, the top automated search suggestion is “Melissa McCarthy weight.” Sure, McCarthy stars on a popular TV show in which her plus-size status is central to the concept (Mike & Molly), but the fascination with her weight is voyeuristic at best, fat-shaming at worst.
This is nothing new, of course. The public is cruel when it comes to celebrity fusible interlining standards of beauty. But this week came another reminder that the problem extends beyond viewers. Despite being one of Hollywood’s most unanimous sweethearts in recent years — magazine editors, please try out a different tagline than “favorite funny gal” — McCarthy struggles to find designers to dress her on the red carpet.
“When I go shopping, most of the time I’m disappointed,” she recently told Redbook. “Two Oscars ago, I couldn’t find anybody to do a dress for me. I asked five or six designers — very high-level ones who make lots of dresses for people — and they all said no.”
I’ve heard this before, and from an actress whose size does not even fall within the standard department-store plus-size range: “It is difficult come awards season, and I need to find a gown to walk down the red carpet in, Interlining For Curtains and there are only size zeros and size twos available,” Christina Hendricks told Glamour in 2010. “Then it becomes downright annoying because all these designers are saying, ‘We love Mad Men, we love Christina, but we won’t make her a dress.’” Then there was Jennifer Lawrence’s claims that by Hollywood standards, she’s “obese.”
Keep in mind, at the Oscars for which McCarthy struggled to find a dress, she had a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her breakout role in Bridesmaids. Perhaps it seemed unlikely that McCarthy would trump one of The Help actresses, but there was still the potential for her to give this dress some serious airtime. McCarthy did indeed lose out to Octavia Spencer, but hey, at least she looked great — in non-couture. Marina Rinaldi, a designer whose glamorous plus-size ensembles are available at high-end department stores like Saks Fifth Avenue, dressed McCarthy in a flowing, jewel-encrusted dust-rose gown (see above) that ranks among the actress’s best-received red carpet looks.
Armani, Dior, Valentino, or even a new-school red carpet favorite like Zac Posen, Elie Saab, or Jason Wu — none of them would dress McCarthy at the height of her star-making moment? She may not have possessed the established glamor of Angelina or Charlize, and no QST Interlining, she would not be able to fit into one of those size two samples on loan. But people look at Melissa McCarthy — and, if you’re a plus-size woman like myself, to her. It became clear to me after the 2011 Emmys that McCarthy had a distinct fashion point of view: along with dressmaker Daniella Pearl, McCarthy designed her gem-toned purple deep-plunge dress with front pockets, strong shoulders, and geometric stitching. And that Eloquii fit-and-flare black-and-white patterned dress McCarthy wore with such casual flair on a red carpet back in April? Yep, ordered the sleeveless version of it.
McCarthy, who studied clothing and textiles at Southern Illinois University before dropping out, and eyed FIT after moving to New York, will team up with Pearl again for her long-in-the-works plus-size clothing line. Talk of the ready-to-wear line first came in 2011, at which point McCarthy told the Hollywood Reporter, “Trying to find stuff that’s still fashion-forward in my size is damn near impossible. It’s either for like a 98-year-old woman or a 14-year-old hooker, and there is nothing in the middle.”
She’s not wrong, and I can only hope McCarthy’s line comes to fruition. Much of the fashion industry has let its own prejudices against the overweight stop it from making a buck, as fashion-forward plus-size lines are still not as common in brick-and-mortar stores as they could be. (Hell, all my fellow fashionable fat girls order entire wardrobes from UK online-only retailer ASOS’ Curve line.) Although at this point, McCarthy’s so in-demand in her day job that who knows when she’ll fit it in among the summer blockbusters? Now, if only one of those films would cast McCarthy as a character with just an ounce of style.
This is nothing new, of course. The public is cruel when it comes to celebrity fusible interlining standards of beauty. But this week came another reminder that the problem extends beyond viewers. Despite being one of Hollywood’s most unanimous sweethearts in recent years — magazine editors, please try out a different tagline than “favorite funny gal” — McCarthy struggles to find designers to dress her on the red carpet.
“When I go shopping, most of the time I’m disappointed,” she recently told Redbook. “Two Oscars ago, I couldn’t find anybody to do a dress for me. I asked five or six designers — very high-level ones who make lots of dresses for people — and they all said no.”
I’ve heard this before, and from an actress whose size does not even fall within the standard department-store plus-size range: “It is difficult come awards season, and I need to find a gown to walk down the red carpet in, Interlining For Curtains and there are only size zeros and size twos available,” Christina Hendricks told Glamour in 2010. “Then it becomes downright annoying because all these designers are saying, ‘We love Mad Men, we love Christina, but we won’t make her a dress.’” Then there was Jennifer Lawrence’s claims that by Hollywood standards, she’s “obese.”
Keep in mind, at the Oscars for which McCarthy struggled to find a dress, she had a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her breakout role in Bridesmaids. Perhaps it seemed unlikely that McCarthy would trump one of The Help actresses, but there was still the potential for her to give this dress some serious airtime. McCarthy did indeed lose out to Octavia Spencer, but hey, at least she looked great — in non-couture. Marina Rinaldi, a designer whose glamorous plus-size ensembles are available at high-end department stores like Saks Fifth Avenue, dressed McCarthy in a flowing, jewel-encrusted dust-rose gown (see above) that ranks among the actress’s best-received red carpet looks.
Armani, Dior, Valentino, or even a new-school red carpet favorite like Zac Posen, Elie Saab, or Jason Wu — none of them would dress McCarthy at the height of her star-making moment? She may not have possessed the established glamor of Angelina or Charlize, and no QST Interlining, she would not be able to fit into one of those size two samples on loan. But people look at Melissa McCarthy — and, if you’re a plus-size woman like myself, to her. It became clear to me after the 2011 Emmys that McCarthy had a distinct fashion point of view: along with dressmaker Daniella Pearl, McCarthy designed her gem-toned purple deep-plunge dress with front pockets, strong shoulders, and geometric stitching. And that Eloquii fit-and-flare black-and-white patterned dress McCarthy wore with such casual flair on a red carpet back in April? Yep, ordered the sleeveless version of it.
McCarthy, who studied clothing and textiles at Southern Illinois University before dropping out, and eyed FIT after moving to New York, will team up with Pearl again for her long-in-the-works plus-size clothing line. Talk of the ready-to-wear line first came in 2011, at which point McCarthy told the Hollywood Reporter, “Trying to find stuff that’s still fashion-forward in my size is damn near impossible. It’s either for like a 98-year-old woman or a 14-year-old hooker, and there is nothing in the middle.”
She’s not wrong, and I can only hope McCarthy’s line comes to fruition. Much of the fashion industry has let its own prejudices against the overweight stop it from making a buck, as fashion-forward plus-size lines are still not as common in brick-and-mortar stores as they could be. (Hell, all my fellow fashionable fat girls order entire wardrobes from UK online-only retailer ASOS’ Curve line.) Although at this point, McCarthy’s so in-demand in her day job that who knows when she’ll fit it in among the summer blockbusters? Now, if only one of those films would cast McCarthy as a character with just an ounce of style.
2014年5月12日星期一
LED Lights Are Ruining Laundry Detergent's White-Brightening Trick
LED lighting is great. The right bulb gives the same warm incandescent glow you love from a fraction of the energy. But there’s a downside: while china led lights make cities look awesome, the most common type of LED lighting dims the ultraviolet trick laundry detergents use to make white clothes look whiter. The future is bright, but it’s also kind of dingy.
There’s some fascinating science going on here. Many laundry detergents contain fluorescent whitening agents, or FWAs, which absorb ultraviolet light and re-emit it as a visible blue wavelength 26W LED Panel Light. This slightly bluish tinge helps overpower the yellowish hue of, say, a well-worn undershirt, making that nasty old rag look radiant and white.
If you’ve ever done your laundry at a blacklight rave (and who hasn’t?), you’ve seen FWAs in action:
Unfortunately, most of the commonly-available LED lighting today emits little or no light in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum. And as a research team led by Penn State’s Dr. Kevin Houser discovered, that makes FWAs pretty much useless.
In a paper published in this month’s LEUKOS (the journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America), Dr. Houser and company asked 39 non-colorblind subjects to sort five pieces of identical material based on whiteness, with each item containing a different concentration of FWAs.
Under a normal halogen light, the subjects were able to order the items from dullest to brightest without issue, accurately sorting them from lowest to highest concentration of FWAs. Under typical 13W LED Panel Light, however, things fell apart: since the LEDs emit no ultraviolet light, the FWA effect disappears. The subjects were reduced to moving the samples around at random.
There’s hope, though! Dr. Houser and company found that “violet-pumped LEDs with a carefully chosen violet emission can emulate the behaviour of a halogen lamp.” Meaning subjects were able to once again be fooled by the visual trickery of FWAs.
Unfortunately, such specifically-tuned LEDs aren’t the norm. And until they are, I guess we’re just going to have to settle for a more realistically dull-coloured future.
There’s some fascinating science going on here. Many laundry detergents contain fluorescent whitening agents, or FWAs, which absorb ultraviolet light and re-emit it as a visible blue wavelength 26W LED Panel Light. This slightly bluish tinge helps overpower the yellowish hue of, say, a well-worn undershirt, making that nasty old rag look radiant and white.
If you’ve ever done your laundry at a blacklight rave (and who hasn’t?), you’ve seen FWAs in action:
Unfortunately, most of the commonly-available LED lighting today emits little or no light in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum. And as a research team led by Penn State’s Dr. Kevin Houser discovered, that makes FWAs pretty much useless.
In a paper published in this month’s LEUKOS (the journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America), Dr. Houser and company asked 39 non-colorblind subjects to sort five pieces of identical material based on whiteness, with each item containing a different concentration of FWAs.
Under a normal halogen light, the subjects were able to order the items from dullest to brightest without issue, accurately sorting them from lowest to highest concentration of FWAs. Under typical 13W LED Panel Light, however, things fell apart: since the LEDs emit no ultraviolet light, the FWA effect disappears. The subjects were reduced to moving the samples around at random.
There’s hope, though! Dr. Houser and company found that “violet-pumped LEDs with a carefully chosen violet emission can emulate the behaviour of a halogen lamp.” Meaning subjects were able to once again be fooled by the visual trickery of FWAs.
Unfortunately, such specifically-tuned LEDs aren’t the norm. And until they are, I guess we’re just going to have to settle for a more realistically dull-coloured future.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)