Vous vous souvenez du dernier Notebook ultra-slim à base d’Intel Calpella ? Celui où peu d’informations nous étaient parvenues ? Chose promise, chose due, nous revoilà avec cette fois ci toute les caractéristiques de ce PC qui devrait voir le jour à la fin du mois de mars.

Il s’appellera Acer Aspire Timeline X 1830T. Il embarque un écran Glossy de 11.6 pouces avec une résolution en 1366 x 768, un processeur Intel Core i5-520M cadencé à 1.06GHz (Jusqu’à 1.86GHz avec le Turbo Boost), une Intel HM55, 3 ports USB, un port HDMI, le Gigabit LAN, le Wifi 802.11 b / g / n, et une batterie 6 cellules (8 heures).
Le Bluetooth 2.1 +EDR et la 3G sont optionnels

It was two years before the iPhone got copy and paste functions. Now, Microsoft says that its Windows Phone 7 Series, won't have copy and paste when it becomes available later this year.

Engadget reported:

Microsoft just mentioned in a Q&A session here at MIX10 in no uncertain terms that clipboard operations won't be supported on Windows Phone 7 Series

And:

Update: We just super-double-ultra-plus-confirmed this with Microsoft -- Windows Phone 7 Series will not have copy and paste functionality. There is a data-detection service built into the text-handling API that will recognize phone numbers and addresses, but Microsoft says most users, including Office users, don't really need clipboard functionality. We... respectfully disagree?

Wow. Apple first, and now Microsoft. It could take years before it's added says Engadget. Copy and paste must be a very difficult technical problem on smart phones.

Microsoft said it plans to spend $9.5 billion on research and development this year, which is $3 billion more than its closest rivals. I hope a few billion dollars of that budget goes on solving the copy and paste problem. Microsoft could gain a significant lead over Apple.

Articles en Rapport

• Pékin rejette à nouveau les appels pour l'appréciation du yuan

In an unfortunately-forgotten bit of 70s academic bloodsport, Marvin Harris and Marshall Sahlins battled it out in the pages of the New York Review of Books over the origin Aztec cannibalism: was it, as Harris argued, something Aztecs were driven to as a result of a protein deficiency? No, Sahlins answered, but even if it was all of the symbolism and institutions surrounding it would still have to be explained as a result of culture, not nutrition. Sahlins’s argument was devastatingly convincing because it explained two phenomenon with a single maneuver: Aztec cannibalism was a result of culture, not nutritional needs, just as Harris’s belief in it was motivated not by facts, but by his own (American) cultural tendency to see human behavior as shaped by biological factors.

A disagreement with similar contours is afoot today. The latest skirmish in the Jared Diamond wars deals not only with issues of scholarly accuracy, but also the cultural/personal motivation of the protagonists as well as the social effects of their arguments. The main protagonists are the authors of Questioning Collapse, an edited volume in which expert scholars take issue with Jared Diamond’s reading of their specialty topics: the Rapa Nui (Easter Island) specialist discusses Diamond’s use of the Rapa Nui data, the Incan specialist discusses Diamond on Pizzaro and Atahualpa, and so forth. The book is critical of Diamond, who has responded with a review in Nature that is none too friendly itself.

The Usual Denunciations are already issuing from Stinky Journalism.org, which mostly focus on how unethical it was for Diamond to write a review of a book that criticized his book without explicitly telling readers the book he was criticizing criticized him. You can check it out if you want, but I think its much more interesting to see how the back and forth between Questioning Collapse and Diamond exemplified some of the issues that played out twenty years earlier in the Sahlins/Harris debate. How do we tack between the social effects of our work and its accuracy? How can we address the cultural underpinnings that motivate an author’s writing without falling back into ad hominem attacks? How well does Collapse stand up to scholarly scrutiny? And how good a job does Questioning Collapse do of reaching out to Diamond’s popular audience? These questions are worth asking — even if you are a little burned out on the Jared Diamond wars.

In this piece I want to review Questioning Collapse through the lens of these issues. I’ll start by working backwards from Diamond’s review in Nature to the book itself. In the end, I find Questioning Collapse’s critique of Diamond extremely compelling, particularly for the way it highlights the theoretical difficulties of Diamond’s position. That said, however, Questioning Collapse’s (henceforth ‘QC’) authors often don’t do the readers any favors — as a piece of public anthropology I feel it has a long way to go.

Diamond’s piece is actually a review of two books, Questioning Collapse and The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. In the event, however, only about 400 of its 1300 words focus on the later volume. In the review, Diamond pulls a classic Sahlins maneuver, arguing that the authors are driven by a tendentious preference for a “positive message about human behavior” is “laudable” but, unfortunately, does not mesh well with the facts. The result is a “naively optimistic redefinition” of the data which “inevitably forces one to distort history and to avoid trying to explain what really happened.” Indeed, Diamond even claims that although they take issue with his work the authors of QC “do not offer a substitute thesis” for facts which “cry out for explanation, even if one relabels them as something other than collapse”. Political correctness, it seems, blinds Questioning Collapse to The Facts. Or, as the subtitle of the review puts it, ‘realism’ (i.e. Diamond) must trump ‘positivity’ (i.e. QC).

In fact there are four themes in Questioning Collapse: that of resilience (as opposed to collage), of colonialism (‘empire expansion’), of the similarity of current environmental issues to the past, and that of what constitutes an adequate popular anthropology. Diamond deals mostly with the first two topics in his review, and I will skip the third here but I’ll address the rest as well as make a few points about the factual errors each side accuses the other of having.

Resilience versus collapse, or, seven million Mayans can’t be wrong

Is Diamond correct when he says QC’s feel-good agenda prevents it from seeing the truth about collapse? On this first major claim, I think Diamond and QC are talking past one another. At the broadest level, QC takes issue with the three key words in Collapse’s title: ‘collapse’, ’success’, and ‘choose’. What, specifically, counts as collapse? The authors of QC argue that there is more to societal continuity than Diamond’s focus on population size and social complexity. There are, they point out, millions of Mayan people alive today — how then can we say that Mayan culture has disappeared? They also point out that it is hard to tell where one society starts and another begins. Is agriculture in the Netherlands an example of ecological success once we think about the effects their importation of fodder has on countries like Brazil from which they import it? And ‘success’: how long does a society have to be around before it is officially considered to be one? In his excellent article in the QC McNeill points out that Diamond plays fast and loose with dates — the Greenland Norse, for instance, survived longer than all of the modern societies that Diamond lists as successes. And ‘choice’: many of the authors of the volume point out that societies are not people — different parts of them make different decisions for different reasons. Often times ‘choices’ are the emergent property of many individual decisions. And in a world where actions have unintended consequences, even selfish choices might end up being sustainable ones, and vice versa. It is for this reason that the authors tend to focus on ‘resilience’ rather than ‘collapse’ — on the way that populations change over time, but tend overall to endure.

In sum, QC argues that Diamond’s notion of collapse is too simple. Societies are not externally bounded and internally homogeneous. They do not make decisions like humans do. They change through time, making it difficult to identify when they change beyond recognition. Long-term trends are, they argue, mostly for continuity, which is why they use the term ‘resilience’ rather than collapse. Mayans are still around. Easter Islanders are still around — in fact, QC has little boxed-in sections highlighting contemporary descendants of supposedly-collapsed societies.

Diamond is not having any of it. He responds that “It makes no sense to me to redefine as heart-warmingly resilient a society in which everyone ends up dead, or in which most of the population vanishes, or that loses writing, state government and great art for centuries… Even when many people do survive and eventually reestablish a populous complex society, the initial decline is sufficiently important to warrant being honestly called a collapse and studied further.” Diamond’s model of collapse is that familiar to us from the video game Civilization by Sid Meier: civilizations all grow in one direction towards more and more complexity with bigger and bigger cities, and if they go down in size, you lose. The authors of QC have a more anthropological understanding of societies, insisting that they not internally homogeneous or externally bounded, that they persist in time, and that we must understand their ups and downs.

At heart, then, the resilience/collapse debate is a discussion of interpretation, not facts. Many readers will probably find Diamond’s civilization-or-bust definition of collapse compelling, and agree with him that ‘positivity’ leads QC’s authors to a tendentious interpretation of the facts. This is a pity since I think QC takes a principled and satisfying theoretical position on collapse. Still, one can see why popular readers might not be swayed.

It’s the Colonialism, Stupid

Diamond does remarkably less well when it comes to ‘empire expansion’. One of the most egregious howlers from Diamond’s review is his claim that “although the authors of Questioning Collapse may wish it were otherwise, students and laypersons alike know that Europeans did conquer the world” and that “the authors seem uncomfortable with the glaring fact that it is Europeans, not Native Australians or Americans or Africans, who have expanded over the globe in the past 500 years.” The kindest thing one can say about Diamond’s position here is that it is unintelligible, because the alternative options are that a) Diamond’s personal animus against the authors was so intense he could not understand the content of the book or b) he simply did not read the book he is reviewing.

As far as I can tell, Diamond believes the book argues the exact opposite of what it actually says. He appears to think that the authors of QC are arguing that the hand of European rule lay lightly on the colonized world, which never suffered population loss. QC doesn’t admit that there is such a thing as ‘empire expansion’? How about the ending of Michael Wilcox’s essay in the volume (one of my favorites):

Diamond’s tidy explanation of conquest and global poverty is not only factually incorrect; it gives us the sense that its origins lie somewhere out there, beyond the agency of the reader. The implication is that if conquests were situated long ago, somewhere else, then we are powerless over their contemporary manifestations. Conquests are never instantaneous, transformative, or all encompassing. They are enacted, reenacted, and rewritten for each succeeding generation. In this sense Diamond’s narrative of disappearance and marginalization is one of conquest’s most potent instruments. (p 138)

Does this sound like someone who didn’t get the memo that “Europeans did conquer the world”?

Diamond accuses QC of down-playing the role of colonialism in human history, and not offering an alternate explanation for the collapse of indigenous society, when in fact colonialism is their alternate explanation for the collapse of nonwestern societies. Wilcox writes “a more appropriate troika of destruction [than guns, germs, and steel] would be ‘lawyers, god, and money’”. Terry Hunt and Carl Lipo write that “ancient deforestation was not the cause of population collapse. If we are to apply a modern term to the tragedy of Rapa Nui, it is not ecocide but genocide.”

In sum, QC attempts to take the moral high-ground out from underneath Diamond when it comes to colonialism, arguing that he underplays the horrors of colonialism because his cultural blinkers prevent him from seeing the truth. Indeed, one of the major arguments of the book is that Diamond (and other social scientists) aid and abet on-going oppression of indigenous people. The proper response from Diamond — had he noticed — would have been to cast the authors of QC as a bunch of lefty radicals who have given up on Scientific Accuracy in the name of advocacy. Except of course he didn’t notice.

Some readers may find Wilcox’s invective overheated, and find the anti-colonial agenda of QC too ‘pc’ in their denunciation of the book’s social effects. That is why it is so gratifying that the volume also takes up the issue of accuracy and never lets go: Diamond is not just tendentious, he is also wrong. The fact that Diamond simply missed this major part of their argument really detracts from his credibility.

Fact Checking

Beyond these overarching themes there are a number of particular factual disputes between Diamond and the authors of QC. In his review, Diamond argues that the Yali he met and the Yali that Gewertz and Errington’s volume is about are different people; he argues against Wilcox that Chaco canyon was deforested; he argued against Berglund that the Greenland Norse died out, rather than emigrating; he argues against Taylor that ecology was a factor in the Rwandan genocide; and he argues against what he calls David Cahill’s “absurd rewriting” of the Spanish conquest of the Inca.

None of Diamond’s factual claims are very convincing. Which Yali was which does not matter, because Gewertz and Errington’s merely use the conversation with Yali as a set piece to raise a series of other claims about colonialism in Papua New Guinea, none of which Diamond addresses. Diamond offers as evidence that overpopulation was a factors for genocide in Rwanda a school teacher’s assertion that “The people whose children had to walk barefoot to school killed the people who could buy shoes for theirs.” Which seems to me to be an argument about inequality rather than population pressure — if it is not just a statement about shoes. Wilcox provides two citations to back up his claim that Chaco canyon was forested, while Diamond never cites his sources in the review or in Collapse, and so it is impossible to verify his claims. This also makes his claim that there is archaeological evidence of the death of the Greenland Norse impossible to verify. His claim that David Cahill’s paper is an “absurd rewriting” of Incan-Spanish relations seems to miss Cahill’s careful and, as far as I can tell, uncontroversial point that conquerors often keep local systems of social stratification intact and install themselves on top of them.

Now, it is surely unfair to ask a 1300 word review to exhaustively respond to all of the criticisms made in a 375 page book. Still, one can’t help but notice that the authors of QC make serious claims that throw Diamond’s entire reading of societal collapse into question, and Diamond’s response is to ignore the forest and call out a few trees. When people like Terry Hunt and Carl Lipo argue that Diamond’s claims about Rapa Nui are fundamentally mistaken, you expect such big-issue claims to merit a response.

Of course, Questioning Collapse was not perfect either

That said, the authors of QC do not always make it easy for readers to be swayed to their point of view. The editors claim that “participants committed themselves to setting aside abstruse academic prose and cumbersome in-text references in favor of a more user-friendly text.” Really? Can we blame Diamond for not lingering carefully over, for instance, Cahill’s prose when it contains sentences like this:

It encoded all the familiar generic facts of colonial conquests as seen by Europeans: the mutual incomprehension and marveling at the mirror-image alterities; the chasm between New World and Old World epistemologies, “true” rational knowledge against heathen superstition; clever Castilian against dullard Inca; true believers versus the unevangelized barbarians, at best seen as promising neophytes; asymmetrical technologies manifest in the flash of steel and the thrust of lance against bronze close-combat weapons, slingshot, cotton armor and buckler; European initiative against the kind of unquestioning obeisance associated with “oriental despotism.”

I am guessing the average reader will quit long before they get to the part of the sentence where they miss the Wittfogel reference. While several of the authors write clearly and passionately, on the whole Diamond still wins the contest for clear prose. In fact, many of the essays employ all the apparatus of scholarly prevarication: introductory sections reflecting on what it means to write for a popular audience, wider theoretical issues of contextualization, and so forth. You must wade through all this to get to the point where they actually talk about why they think Diamond is wrong.

Or you may not. One of the strangest things about this otherwise very ballsy collection is that many — maybe even most — of the articles do not actually quote Jared Diamond. Sometimes I think the authors are so immersed in the topic that they forget to leave signposts to the reader about what they are doing. Joel Berglund’s piece, for instance, appears to be a valuable detailed commentary on Diamond’s chapters on Norse Greenland, but only if you put the two books next to one another. For many readers it will seem like a tour of various facts about Norse Greenland which mentions Diamond at the start. Cahill’s paper often takes aim at “standard colonial tropes” of “indegnous dullards who ‘didn’t know what hit them’” or views in which “Andean civilization… becomes a kind of ‘unenlightened’ primitive polity”. The positions he put in scare quotes are certainly worth criticizing — but are they Diamonds? A close reading — and actual citation — of Diamond’s argument would have made the essay stronger, especially since Cahill’s data so obviously gainsays the claims Diamond actually does make. The best pieces — Hunt and Lipo’s and Wilcox’s, McNeil’s, and so forth — are very strong (disclosure: I share a department with Hunt) and other pieces could have profited by being as tightly written.

Above all, a central argument of QC is that the world is ‘complex’ and it would be better if popular audiences did not need to have it ’simplified’. As Thomas Hylland Eriksen reminds us, however, this simply will not fly. Public anthropology is, I’ve argued, the bar at the conference — when people tell you straight up and without hedging what they think is really going on in their papers. It is in the nature of the game to “dare to be reductive”. I think QC would have done better to explore how to reduce effectively, rather than lament the fact that such a move was necessary — or attempt to avoid making it at all.

Taking the fight to the streets?

Regardless of what you think about the particulars of Questioning Collapse, it establishes once and for all that mainstream academic authors consider Diamond’s work to be problematic. Coming from a major major press (Cambridge) with a roster of quality specialists, Questioning Collapse is undoubtedly Ivory Tower. If anything, it could have let down its hair a bit more. If only there were some way to reach a popular audience… to take the fight to the streets… in like… say… a blog…? Luckily, they have one, although it has not been updated regularly.

It seems to me QC’s blog could serve two purposes. First, it would also be an excellent place to begin a long and exceedingly detailed analysis of some of the particular factual claims Diamond makes — particularly those in the Nature review. This is the sort of intellectual spadework that publishers are not keen on, which should be made available to the public, and works well in small sub-essay size units which can be clearly written and do not take forever to read. Blog posts, in other words.

Second, Questioning Collapse is relatively expensive (US$30) and formally written — not ideal for spreading the word. The website could become a great location for remixed versions of the articles: piece available for download as teaching resources, or for the casual reader, where the authors cut right to the chase, free and open access, for anyone who is interested in reading them.

Conclusion

In sum, QC excels in empirical accuracy, not public outreach. While I find their arguments persuasive — in most cases, completely persuasive — I think they could have done a better job reaching a broader audience. There is a danger that their accounts of the social effects of Diamond’s work, and his personal/cultural motivations for writing could turn into ad hominem, which would be a shame. Because Diamond is a public figure, the proper course would be to be even more scrupulous in adhering to standards of professionalism and impartiality than a scholar normally would, even though the impulse is (I imagine) to go in rather the other dimension. From my point of view, the central issue has got to be the empirical adequacy of his claims.

As for Diamond, the impression I get of him is of a scholar who increasingly refuses to adhere to the best practices of the university, and who can get away with it because of the power and influence that comes from being in the public eye. Of course, there is nothing wrong with going AWOL from the academy if one wants to become a free-floating intellectual. But Diamond is not Carlos Castaneda, and his audience gives him credence because of his situation within the academy and his role as a translator of technical discourse. It is easy to become complacent when you’re, you know, an ultra-rich Pulitzer Prize-winning author (or so I imagine!). But one must resist the temptation to relax one’s standards. Both lay readers and his colleagues deserve better work than we see in Nature review.

In the seventies, Sahlins and Harris didn’t have the Internet to fall back on. Today, we are blessed with a means of communication that allow incensed scholars to argue endlessly in front of the entire planet! Now that the book is published, I look forward to seeing the authors of Questioning Collapse – and perhaps even Diamond himself? — move these issues forward.

Samsung is the next consumer electronics manufacturer to come out swinging against Apple’s iPad. A senior executive confirmed plans to release a “slate PC” during the second half of this year.

The key differentiating points for this tablet will address what Samsung feels are two major shortcomings of the iPad: lack of processing power and not enough connectivity options.

“I do feel that that slate-type platform has legs but I think the legs need to be far more powerful, for example an Atom-based product which has far greater flexibility, not to mention inputs and outputs,” said Director of Samsung Australia’s IT division Philip Newton at the Samsung Forum in Singapore. “This has more potential than an iPad.”

The goal is to build a device powerful enough to become the primary computing machine for many people. The ARM chip that powers Apple’s iPad was deemed not powerful enough to make the tablet form factor truly shine; hence Samsung reports that it is looking at two platforms from Intel to power the unnamed device: Atom or the Moorestown System on a Chip.

The slate will be a device “you could take to university and do a PowerPoint presentation on it, for example, or a device that could be taken home or to the office and docked,” Samsung’s Emmanuele Silanesu said .

Samsung is no stranger to the “in-between smartphone and laptop” zone, having released the Q1 ultra-mobile PC (pictured above right) back in 2006. Silanesu assures us that the forthcoming new tablet will have a much stronger focus on the consumer market than the Q1, which “was a very niche product for a vertical market… It was limited (in functionality), the price was relatively high, and it wasn’t an attractive device for consumers.”

It’s not terribly much to go on yet, but how do you think Samsung’s planned device might stack up against the other crop of iPad alternative hopefuls? Are you interested in some flavor of tablet device, and if so, what features should it have?

[via Boy Genius Report]

Tags: apple, atom, ipad, moorsetown, Q1, samsung, samsung tablet, Tablet, tablets

A new torrent has been uploaded to U2Torrents.com.

Torrent: 5753
Title: 1992-06-04 Dortmund, Germany - Westfalenhalle
Size: 688.80 MB
Category: ZooTv
Uploaded by: u2popbrasil

Description
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U2
1992-06-04 - Dortmund, Germany
Westfalenhalle
Excellent Audience

===========================================
tour :Zoo Tv Tour
leg: leg2.Europe
city : Dortmund
Country: Germany
venue: Westfalenhalle
type :audio
intégralité: complet

===========================================
more know in: http://www.u2gigs.com/show456.html

i've got this shows in trade, so
i'don't know about the lineage
support cd-r
taper: unknow

=============================================

Set list

01. Intro
02. Zoo Station
03. The Fly
04. Even Better Than The Real Thing
05. Mysterious Ways / Love To Love You Baby (snippet)
06. One
07. Unchained Melody (snippet)
08. Until The End Of The World
09. Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses
10. Tryin' To Throw Your Arms Around The World
11. Angel Of Harlem
12. Dancing Queen
13. Satellite Of Love
14. Bad
15. All I Want Is You (snippet)
16. Bullet The Blue Sky
17. Running To Stand Still
18. Where The Streets Have No Name
19. Pride (In The Name Of Love)
20. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
21. Stand By Me
22. Desire
23. Ultra Violet (Light My Way) / My Way (snippet)
24. With Or Without You
25. Love Is Blindness / September 1913 (snippet)

=====================================================================

Enjoy; don't sell only trade and share.

u2popbrasil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can use the URL below to download the torrent (you may have to login).

http://u2torrents.com/torrents-details.php?id=5753&hit=1

Take care!

Live U2
_________________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Please do not reply to this email account it is NOT monitored.
Please visit the U2torrents.com Help section at http://www.u2torrents.com/help/ for helpful information or to Ask a Question.

David Beckham strikes again. Despite his achilles injury, the footballer has found time to launch the season's trickiest look. Will you follow suit?

The hallmark of a great modern celebrity is the ability to work a really good look on a really bad day. After all, any chump can pull off a big red-carpet moment, with months to prepare and a roomful of stylists to double-check your back view. It's when the going gets tough that icons show their mettle: think of Princess Diana, relaunching herself after the Camilla revelations in the perfect LBD at the Serpentine summer party back in 1994.

And look, now, at David Beckham. Having just been dealt a possibly career-ending blow, he'd be forgiven for hiding out in shades and a hat this week, but no. With the world's media watching, he debuts this summer's trickiest and most controversial trend: double denim. The message being, when it comes to style, this is a man still at the top of his game.

Double denim – the pairing of a denim shirt or jacket with denim jeans, shorts or skirt – is this year's Marmite trend. Actually, Marmite doesn't tell the half of it: just now, this is more of a Snail Porridge trend, in that for every brave soul prepared to try out the look, there are several people out there pointing and wrinkling their noses and making fake-gagging gestures.

Why the resistance to double denim? Most of us have the ingredients in our wardrobe, which you would think would make us receptive to the look. And compared to other recent trends – bodycon dresses or wet-look leggings, for instance, both of which the nation leaped upon with gusto – double denim is blissfully undemanding of physical perfection. Chloé, Ralph Lauren and Twenty8Twelve all gave good double denim on their spring/summer 2010 catwalks.

So why do we recoil at the very suggestion? I suspect many of us carry around a half-buried memory of Shakin' Stevens on Top of the Pops. Denim has a kind of totemic quality in popular culture as a symbol of youth and rebellion, and the moments when that association is violated can poison our outlook for years. Remember the "Jeremy Clarkson effect", when the middle-aged denim wearer killed jeans stone-dead, from a fashion point of view, for several years in the 1990s?

The fear of double denim is not entirely irrational. I can't honestly pretend it is an easy look to carry off. Remember Madonna's look in the Music album era? Too literal – the cowboy hat pushed it over the edge. Of course, Alexa Chung looks fabulous, photographed in Vogue recently in washed-out denim and beachy hair and a long pendant around her neck. But get that look ever-so-slightly-wrong – the beachy hair not "done" enough, the jeans a bit too snug – and you've got Status Quo instead, which is entirely the wrong kind of rock look. With that in mind, we hereby present the rules.

1 No belt, please. With a belt, the look that you were hoping projected Paris catwalk insouciance becomes unreconstructed Idaho truck driver.

2 You need contrast in colour: One piece should be a darker-hued denim. You might want this on your bottom half, darker colours being more slimming, but beware: a pale denim shirt can wash out your skintone.

3 Don't go with a very fine chambray shirt with a very heavy denim jean. That's not double denim, that's cheating, and it doesn't have the right impact.

4 Break up the heaviness of the look with something light and feminine: the strap of a fabulous Chloé or Mulberry cross-body handbag, perhaps; or a gorgeous pair of dangly earrings; or wear the shirt open one extra button to show off a tiny glimpse of a pretty camisole.

5 Roll your sleeves up and highlight bare wrists with a bracelet or a cocktail ring.

6 Finally, no cowboy boots. Keep feet semi-naked in ballet pumps or a pretty flat sandal.

Jess Cartner-Morley

As controversial fashion U-turns go, double denim is up there with the best of them – not so long ago, in these very pages, I wrote it off with a cutting Shakin'-Stevens-related diss. But as is the wont of fashion people, some time last year I changed my mind and started wearing my denim shirt with jeans again. If a pair of jeans eradicates the need for sartorial thought first thing in the morning, then adding a denim shirt surely makes the whole getting-up process even more of a breeze?

In menswear, said comeback has been brewing for more than a year at least: Calvin Klein showed a head-to-toe pale denim look on its spring 2009 catwalk, Gap endorsed the look last autumn with denim shirts tucked into jeans. And aside from his recent fabulous post-injury look, Beckham has previous double-denim expertise. Last October, he looked particularly rugged in a Wrangler shirt and jeans with facial fuzz at a Lakers game. When Hollywood golden boy Zac Efron adopted the retro denim uniform last year, he seemed to up his manliness quota in the process.

Adi Currie, senior press officer at Topman – whose pale cotton denim shirt was the hit of last summer – says he has started clashing his denims again because it's essentially a masculine look, with workwear roots – it's kind of wrong but right.

On the D&G catwalk for this season, the opening look mixed a super-pale denim shirt with pale, ripped jeans, which probably veered slightly toward being too samey-samey in colour. However, designer Marios Schwab, taking his bow last month during London fashion week in a faded blue shirt – worn open with an old T-shirt – and dark jeans, seemed to strike a better tonal balance.

GQ's recent spring 2010 fashion supplement pronounced that a pair of distressed jeans and a chambray shirt were the two essential new season buys, while David Walker-Smith, director of menswear at Selfridges, is even more enthusiastic: "The double – and even triple – denim look is key: vintage distressed and pure, always with a turn-up on the jean."

Turn-up on those jeans or not, triple denim – shirt, jacket, trousers – is a step too far, a look that even Beckham might struggle to pull off.

Simon Chilvers

• Fashion
• Men's fashion
• Men's trousers
• Men's tops
• Women's trousers
• David Beckham
• Madonna

Lady Gaga and Beyonce’s “Telephone” video went ultra viral after it premiered on Vevo last week, and now a new cover of the jam has blown up (albeit on a smaller scale): Enter “Telephone” (the super twee, adorable version), by Pomplamoose.

You might remember Pomplamoose (a.k.a. musicians Jack Conte and Nataly Dawn) for their similarly stripped-down, hipstered-up version of “Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It),” which came out back in September and has since racked up more than 3.5 million views.

Well, Conte and Dawn’s newest track hit YouTube just yesterday, and it’s already been watched more than 100,000 times. And even as the resident Lady Gaga detractor over here at Mash, I gotta say, it’s pretty catchy. (I especially enjoy the subtle dig at the original’s blatant product placement.)

Check it, and then head on over to the comments to unleash your over-brimming emotions:

Tags: beyonce, Lady Gaga, music, telephone, viral video, youtube

O2 has won the exclusive rights to sell Samsung's BBC iPlayer-enabled Jet Ultra Edition touchscreen handset....

Il y a déjà quelques mois de cela, j'ai été contacté par le site rueducommerce pour un partenariat qui incluait la réception gratuite d'un ustensile de cuisine. Je disposais déjà de tous les ustensiles proposés, j'ai donc choisi celui que j'utilise le plus régulièrement et qu'il va me falloir changer un jour ou l'autre du coup: Une machine à pain

J'ai donc recu cette machine, très rapidement, comme prévu:

C'est une machine à pain classique, avec les fonctionnalités standards (en tout cas, ce sont les mêmes que ma MAP actuelle): des programmes longs, des programmes rapides et ultra rapide, des programmes pour la pâte et la confiture, les gâteaux etc...
Ma MAP me sert uniquement à 2 choses:

• préparer du pain, le plus souvent en mode rapide pcq je rentre trop tard le soir pour faire un programme long
• préparer la pâte à pizza pour les pizzas maison du samedi soir, qui sont une institution depuis quelques années déjà
• Ce sont donc ces 2 fonctionnalités que j'ai testées, et résultat: même qualité, même goût que ma MAP actuelle dont je suis tr_s contente (une MAP Lidl Bifinett). J'en conclus donc que c'est une bonne machine et qu'elle répondra à mes besoins quand la mienne lâchera.
  
  Le seul point négatif que je lui ai trouvé c'est qu'elle a une cuve carrée, plus haute que large (contrairement à la MAP Lidl) et le pain ressemble donc plus à du pain de mie qu'à du pain. Il n'y a qu'un seul pétrin. C'est un point négatif pour moi pcq j'avais choisi exprès ma MAP pcq c'était une cuve rectangulaire, avec une meilleure proportion mie/croute. Mais la plupart des MAP ont des cuves carrés donc ca ne devrait pas vous choquer et ne dérange peut etre que moi??
  
  En tout cas, je suis bien contente d'avoir cette 2ème MAP quand j'ai la flemme de nettoyer la cuve de la 1ère avant de relancer un pain :-)

Beware the Ides of March! I was itching to say that. Ahem. Here is a collection of MAKE magazine articles related to DIY movie making. Note that most back issues of MAKE are available for purchase in the Maker Shed. Don't miss any future articles ... subscribe!

MAKE Volume 01
$14 Video Camera Stabilizer - Make this ultra-low-cost video camera stabilizer and see how much better your video shots turn out.
Flexible Gooseneck Camera Mount - Put a camera or camcorder pretty much anywhere with this flexible camera mount built from a cheap desk lamp.

MAKE Volume 02
15-Mile-High Club - Art Vanden Berg's computer-controlled model glider took images from 79,000 feet.
Stop Motion Animation, the Easy Way - With iStopMotion, making Gumby is less pokey.
Webcam Telescope - Video from still camera zoom.
No More Cue Cards - Make a teleprompter with a laptop, a sheet of glass, and some scrap wood.

MAKE Volume 03
Mailbox Movie - Make a movie that's shot in many locations around the world without leaving your house.

MAKE Volume 04
How to Make a Film, Without Money, While Being Bombed - Shooting a documentary in Belgrade is risky business.
Film Jockey - Julie Meitz uses old film projectors to create collages of light and color.
VJing 101 - Performing live video combines the visual power of filmmaking with the spontaneity of jazz.

MAKE Volume 05
It Came From My Garage! - Model kit makers bring B-movie monsters to your home.
iSight Tripod Mount - Point your webcam anywhere you want.

MAKE Volume 06
The Eye Aquatic - An underwater ROV with live video images.
Video Podcasting - Producing TV shows on the cheap.

MAKE Volume 07
How to How-To - Use a head-mounted video camera to produce instructions for making things.
A Sublime Machine - Mike Wilder makes Lego robots for time-lapse 3D videos of carnivorous plants.
Rocket-Launched Camcorder - Launch a hacked single-use camcorder in a model rocket.
How to Drink Beer on C-SPAN - Put yourself into somebody else's video.
TV-to-Synth Interface - Triggering sound from video images.

MAKE Volume 08
How Not to Make a How-To Video - Ignore these handy rules and your instructional video will turn out great!
Van TV - Big sights and sounds hit the streets.