I Commented On....

... these people's awesome blog posts. :)

1.  Angeli's

2.  Caitlin's

3.  Dyrosha's

4.  Emily's

5.  Mary's

6.  Veronica's

^^v.

Drink Yourself Fat

Obesity and unhealthy diets definitely are an epidemic in our nation. I do not think they are usually caused by intentional consumption of notoriously unhealthy foods such as chips and soda, however.

In my opinion, I think in most cases many people are making an effort to be healthier by changing their diets, but just aren't eating the right foods or getting the right exercise. Just like the Fox News article says: “Fruit juice has exactly the same number of calories as soda, so if you give up soda and start drinking fruit juice in its place, you’ll lose no weight... They’ll say, ‘I gave up soda, but I’m not losing weight.’ And when I ask what they’ve replaced it with, it’s usually fruit juice.” This is an example of someone's vain efforts to be healthier by giving up something unhealthy, but unknowingly replacing it with something as equally damaging.


I think this "drinking fat" scare campaign would be effective on most people, specifically an older audience. Personally, this campaign would not be effective on me. Being silly and immature, I'd probably end up mocking it by drinking even more soda. At least, that was how I responded to the video - I laughed at how exaggerated and gross it was and didn't take it seriously.

If the new tax on pop appears in Canada, I think it would be an effective way to ensure that Canadians stay healthy. If the prices increase, I know many people that would think twice, or, (like my mom would) not buy it ever again. While I am constantly urged by my parents to eat my leafy greens and stay away from fats and sugar, I enjoy my share of Pepsi and Ruffles like anyone else. Therefore, I will personally be irritated by this tax but am willing to pay a large sum of money for my comfort foods. Despite the fact I won't be able to enjoy them as often, I know this would benefit my health and all of Canada's, and I support the tax's (future) introduction.

Round Start

It's amazing how drastically gaming has changed in a matter of years. When I was younger, I tried playing Contra by the classic Atari, and I thought it was most exciting and amazing thing ever. Compared to modern games, however, Contra can barely compare. The graphics are simple without much detail, and the game itself is plain compared to the many modes and features of newer, similar games such as Combat Arms.


The general point of both games is more or less the same: eliminate your enemies. I enjoyed Contra at the time because it was fun and I didn't know of anything more advanced. I didn't mind the lack of detail and low graphics, because a game is a game - I had fun playing it and that was all that mattered to me. Although the genres of Contra and Combat Arms are similar, Combat Arms is many times more enjoyable and exciting to me because of its more realistic graphics and numerous game modes - the result of quality evolution.

On the other hand, the new "exergames" like Brain Age and Wii Fit are completely different types of gaming from the classic shooting games like Contra. They are games designed for enjoyment as well as for educational and physical benefits.

Are these new game genres still considered games or have they evolved into something new? Of course these new genres are considered games. Games are entertainment, and these exergames are just that. I own Brain Age and Wii Sports, and I love playing them. They entertain me, like all games should. It doesn't make the game something different if it exercises my body and mind - that's just a bonus to the entertainment.

Have games evolved enough to the point that they are beneficial to you, rather than detrimental? Or are they merely wolves in sheep's clothing?
I think that while there are games that are more beneficial than others, any game has potential to be detrimental. For example, playing Combat Arms may not be as beneficial to your health as Wii Sports, but playing Wii Sports for 24 hours straight isn't exactly good for you either. It's all in the way people play the game that decides whether the effect is detrimental or not.

In conclusion, I applaud technology and the good it has done for the gaming world. Not only has it made gaming a more exciting experience, it has also provided extra opportunities for exercise. If games continue to evolve at this pace, I can't wait to know what new gaming surprises arise in the near future.

:)

Why So Skinny?

I looked at the photoshopped images by Ralph Lauren, and I couldn't help but laugh. It's unbelievable that someone would have such a distorted image of what's beautiful that they would think this image looks good.

I've had many encounters with the wonders of photoshop, and while some of them were breathtaking works of art, others were similar to the above example - waaay over the line.

If you look closely, you can tell his hips and legs are completely out of proportion from the rest of his body. It looks so wrong.


And this one... well, at least her features seem to be in better proportion. But it still bothers me because there's hardly a resemblance between the pictures. If I saw the second picture, I wouldn't even guess it was Kelly Clarkson, because I'm so used to seeing her how she is in the first. I don't see why they had to make such a dramatic change to her face; there wasn't a need for it. She's adorable even without the photoshop.

Seeing companies come up with badly manipulated pictures doesn't surprise me, because I've seen enough of the media to know that any professionally-printed picture of a celebrity or a model is often never without make up or editing.

Of course, there are exceptions, such as the "true beauty" trend. This trend is a relief from the countless photoshopped images we are exposed to, because these models (whose pictures, in my opinion, are much prettier than many other photoshopped ones) show us that beauty doesn't have to be faked with excessive photoshop. Along with "plus-sized" models, I believe this trend will definitely stick. Many people would feel a personal connection to these models. They are average people like everyone else who don't bother with makeup and editing, and instead are proud of their natural physical traits, like we all should be.

Oh, Hypocritical Unilever

Hearing about the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty reassures me. It’s comforting to know that while the media is busy producing misleading messages, there are some like the Dove Campaign that make an effort to correct people’s view of what they see in the media and other campaigns, such as Axe.

The Axe Effect commercial makes me both laugh and roll my eyes. There’s a lot of sexism with this campaign – it makes women come across as shallow, desperate animals that will travel great lengths for a guy who (supposedly) smells good. It annoys me how they show women treating a guy like he’s a god; for doing nothing but dumping a bottle of Axe on himself. As if the Axe is all that matters.

Seeing this commercial makes me wonder about the producers: did they purposely try to make it so tremendously lame that it’s funny and would appeal to viewers, or did they honestly think some people would be naive enough to believe this and buy the product? When I take target audiences into consideration, I realize that perhaps this is who the campaign is aiming for –- naive people, specifically young children, who would believe anything they see. It’s a sinister way of marketing their products, but hey, it’s business. It is only expected, unfortunately.

Before I read the original blog post, I had no idea Dove and Axe were under the same company. When I learned they were, whoosh. There went my admiration and respect for Dove’s efforts in their campaign. Well, I suppose not all of it. It’s still nice knowing Dove is trying to raise self esteem and encourage real beauty, but once I knew the background information (that they were both under Unilever), I began to question Dove’s concern. Is their view of real beauty really genuine, or is it just another marketing scheme?

The parent company, in this case, Unilever, has full responsibility in ensuring that all their sectors have the same views. It’s completely hypocritical to say, “If you love your natural beauty, others will too. But in order for other people to love you entirely, you need a strong, overpowering smell. Buy Axe.”

In the past, I was happy buying a Dove product knowing it contributed to the Self Esteem Fund. Now, I’m more reluctant. Unilever is so hypocritical that for all I know, my contribution could be intended more for marketing or advertising than the actual charity.

They're Happy Because They Eat Lard

By looking at these ads, I can only imagine how I would interpret them had I been living or growing up in the time period they were released. Is this really how the media communicated with the public? The suggestions and messages of these advertisements are just unbelieveable – and I don’t mean unbelievable in the good way.

My first reaction to this advertisement was to roll my eyes. Great, it’s another one of the thousands of weight loss campaigns that probably involves diets and meal-supplements. Looking closer, I realize they are advertising weight loss via tapeworm. This company is encouraging the public to swallow tapeworms? Are you serious? So, if I want to lose weight, all I need to do is swallow some worms, get zero exercise, and eat all the junk and fatty foods I want? Yeah, don’t think so. How is that even a legitimate method of losing weight? This is one of the strangest and most desperate methods of weight loss I have ever encountered. It’s really alarming that so many people at the time were desperate enough to get thin, that they resorted to swallowing tapeworms. I hope that in modern society there are some health campaigns and regulations that restrict such methods.

Sexism, sexism, sexism. Any person would find this ad offensive. I could engage in an hour-long speech about how stupid and inaccurrate the message is, but this page only has room for so many words. “Blow in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere” – this message implies that a woman is not self-governing, and will follow a man around because he happens to hold Tipalet. I would compare this relationship to the way a dog would be under the control of its owner. Are the creators of this ad really so closed-minded that they couldn’t see how inappropriate this is? Fortunately, gender discrimination has diminished over the years since this was advertised. The media and generally everyone in the present see both men and women as equals.

This advertisement makes me suspicious. Why would doctors, the ones who are most knowledgeable about health issues, encourage cigarette smoking? Either the ad creators stretched the truth, or the public and media’s views of what’s healthy were distorted. In connection to the Tipalet ad, this shows that in the 50’s or 60’s when this ad was created, smoking was seen as more socially acceptable and ‘cool’ then than it is now. Today, the number of anti-smoking advertisements outweigh the number of cigarette advertisements, and I applaud the media for that.

“They’re happy because they eat lard.” Besides the literal definition, it’s unclear exactly what they’re trying to say. Because the family in the picture doesn’t look unhealthy in any way, I think this ad is mocking weight loss campaigns, such as the tapeworm ad. Instead of encouraging diets, the ad is encouraging the consumption of lard. Personally, I find this ad amusing and incredibly random. I do not see any offensive or misleading messages in the advertisement.

From looking at these ads and comparing them with present ads, I am glad to see that our view of what’s ‘cool’ or healthy is not as distorted as it was in the past. There are more anti-smoking and true-beauty campaigns than before, and the role of women has also changed. I can only imagine my reaction if I ever saw one of these strange ads on television or on the subway – ‘are they kidding me?’

Google Street View: a one-way ticket to 'fame'

I’ve never heard of anything like Google Street View before, and when I decided to check it out, I was completely amazed – and a little creeped out. It was almost like a gift from the technology gods: 360 degree, high-quality pictures of nearly every street, every building and every landmark in various places around the world. I could get a taste of what Times Square and Hollywood are like without needing to be there.
After marvelling at the precision and quality of the shots, I checked my home address and was pleasantly surprised that it existed; it hadn’t before on Google Maps. I was thrilled, until I took a closer look at the picture. Whoaaaa. Hold up, is that our car pulling out of the driveway?! In that moment, I felt so proud of my car – it was famous! :)

A bit later, I search the address of a relative and discovered my car holds fame not only in Scarborough, but also in Brampton. At the time, I was more creeped out than delighted. Was Google stalking me? Possibly. Even though I was a bit paranoid, I did know Google had no malicious intentions, and was only using these pictures to help them develop the new innovation that is Google Street View.

My experience with Google Street View has left me with a good impression of their new technology. Privacy laws are not being broken, because license plates and faces are blurred. I also believe complaints are unnecessary, since the pictures are, after all, being taken for a positive purpose. Some might argue that this technology could be used against somebody, instead of in a beneficial way as originally intended. While I agree that this technology is potentially dangerous, there is no way to prevent it. Therefore, I think a complaint against Street View is a complaint against any other of the countless, equally risky information sources.