The young and shoeless entrepreneur is Rachel Sequoia. Her idea is to sell jars of air. The reason why people would want to buy jars of air from her is that it would be air from special locations around the world, including Atlantis. Presumably air from the legendary sunken city would be at something of a premium.

Maybe she meant Atlanta? Certainly there was another clear error in the hand-drawn presentation, with the numbers simply not adding up regarding the constituent parts of air. That said, the figure of 6% energy which was given was only ever presented as a rough estimate, and for the other parts these would vary so perhaps an average of all of them would add up to more than 100%. The benefit of the doubt can be given.

One thing is certainly right about the business plan. Although niche is good, mass appeal is where the big bucks lie. Having a product that is marketed at not only people but also plants and animals (including the all important cat demographic) cant be a bad thing.

Sequoia’s pitch was trying to secure a five figure investment. Items that the investment is needed to pay for included the special crystals needed to bless the air and imbue it with positive energy. While you are laughing, consider the fact that the chap who invented the pet rock in the ’70′s became a multi-millionaire from it. Currently the website for the company is not live but you can sign up for email alerts. Might be worth keeping an eye on this one – and if the company ever issues stock perhaps you will watn to call up your broker and get some added to your investment portfolio. Or perhaps not.

Flowering only very rarely the Corpse Plant is guarenteed to cause a stink in the botanical world whenever it blooms.

However, amongst botany geeks the Corpse Flower appears to be quite a hit; There aren’t many of them to be found outside the plant’s natural habitat, the rainforests of Indonesia, and they rarely flower in the wild, let alone in cultivation, so maybe it shouldn’t be a surprise that whenever one of these bizarre organisms blooms in captivity flora-philes come flocking to see the unusual sight, and “experience” its unique scent.

On this occasion it’s the specimen held at the Houston Museum of Natural Science (HMNS) which is due to flower, and such has been the buzz it’s created that not only have the HMNS set up a webcam, & a “Corpse Flower Watch” on their blog, complete with daily updates on the plant’s progress and measurements of its growth, but, with the fragrant flower due to open its petals any time this week, they’re also planning on opening the museum 24hrs a day while it’s in bloom.

The plant, named Lois, has also become a bit of a celebrity on Twitter, so if you’re a would-be botanist, but not based within travelling distance of the HMNS you can still keep up to date with its progress minute to minute.

The prizes are awarded, each year, by Improbable Research an organisation whose purpose is to highlight scientific “research that makes people laugh and then think”. They operate year round, bringing news of off the wall science to the masses (well, ok, maybe just masses of geeks,) but their big event each year is the Ig Noble prizes, where prizes are given out in a range of categories, much like the real Noble prizes.

The 2010 prizes aren’t due to be awarded until the end of September, but some of the highlights from the 2009 roll of honour include:
VETERINARY MEDICINE PRIZE: to the researchers who discovered that named cows produce more milk than unnamed animals.
CHEMISTRY PRIZE: to the team who synthesised diamonds from tequilla. (I knew there had to be some use for the vile stuff!)
MEDICINE PRIZE: to the man who cracked the knuckles on just one of his hands every day, for 50 years! in order to demonstrate that the activity doesn’t cause arthritis.
LITERATURE PRIZE: to the Irish Police, for issuing over 50 speeding tickets to one “Prawo Jazdy”, a Polish phrase meaning “Driving License”.

Life saving lingerie: a bra which doubles as a gas mask!

Really, I’m not making this up, SEE -even the BBC reported it!

I guess the idea is that most woman wear bras most of the time, which I suppose means that the “life saving” lingerie is always likely to be available, should the need arise, &, even better, each woman in the area of the attack would be able to offer a hand (or should that be cup?) to someone less well prepared.

My mother used to tell me to change my pants in case I got hit by a bus, which always struck me as odd since I imagine that, even if the pants were clean that morning, the no doubt frightening ordeal of being hit by a large, heavy vehicle would ensure that they were no longer clean by the time the paramedics arrived.
In the future are young woman going to have their mothers telling them to make sure their underwear is clean? Just in case there’s a gas attack and they’re forced to share half their bra with a stranger -imagine the embarrasment of having to offer a stranger a slightly soiled bra-come-gas mask! never mind that they may be more concerned by life threatening gas, or somewhat distracted by the spectacle of women around them frantically removing their tops!
In fact it might end up making gas attacks a somewhat salacious affair, which I suppose, in it’s own right, might not be a bad deterrent to the evil doers of this world, or at least those who hold strong views about women showing as little skin as possible.

I also wonder if this lingerie-lifeline is merely the tip of the iceberg, in future are we to be treated to a whole range of everyday items which double as emergency equipment? Maybe household furniture which can be quickly converted into a nuclear bunker? (scarily not so far from official govt advice, during the cold war era, as to how the public should protect themselves in the event of the 4 minute warning sounding.) Or perhaps M&S will start stocking little black party dresses which, in the event of a terror attack, quickly convert into a full NBC suit?

Lingerie that's attractive and functional? I must admit, I'm dubious.

Other than carrying a putter around, the wearer really is all set and ready to go whenever they fancy some putting action, at least in theory; The fact that doing so would require the wearer to strip down to their pants is, sadly, likely to deter many from using this novelty lingerie outfit to it’s full potential.

The piece looks at the robbery of a French bank security van, the twist being that it appears it was the security firm’s own driver who was responsible for the heist. You’ve got to think that the man has to have balls the size of water melons, be really desperate, or be a few scones short of a picnic to try something so brazen.
Apparently his plan was so audacious (i.e. stupid) that the French police were originally working on the theory that he’d been kidnapped, along with the van, by a gang of robbers, or that someone close to him was being held captive by a gang in order to ensure his co-operation. However, it appears that this isn’t the case, and having visited the chap’s home, to find it pretty much cleaned out, and checked on his bank accounts, which have all been emptied recently, the French Police have come to the conclusion that the driver took off with the van, and the 11 million Euros it contained, of his own free will!

The driver had obviously planned his heist quite carefully, not only had he tied up loose ends, ready to dissappear, but he’d also done his homework well enough to be able to disable the van’s tracking system, and get the money out of the van’s armoured vault; A job which normally requires two people co-operating. Another thing which points at him having accomplises is the sheer amount of money he managed to shift, 11 million in notes has got to make for a fair old stack of paper! Even though the security van was abandoned in a quiet side street you’d still think that someone shifting the contents of a bank securitry van into some other vehicle (maybe he’d planned ahead and arranged van rental?) would draw attention, but as of yet the French Police haven’t mentioned witnesses coming forward.

So is the guy going to get away with it? On one hand it seems like such a stupid plan that it has to fail, but the guy’s obviously planned fairly well. The police don’t appear to have got him yet, despite knowing his identity, & although the French borders are being watched for him, you’d think anyone who had planned such an audacious robbery would have thought about where they were going to go in the longer term, and how they were going to get there.
One thing’s for sure, if the French Police don’t manage to catch this guy pretty soon, they’ll end up looking a little more like Inspector Clouseau than they’d like:

This piece from the BBC looks at a long running legal case over the use of the fungicide dimethyl fumarate on leather sofas made by a number of firms in China, & sold by UK retailers, including big names like, Land of Leather, Walmsleys and Argos. The sofas were apparently treated with the chemical to stop them developing mould while in transport & storage, however many people who bought the affected sofas developed painful skin rashes, as well as chest and eye problems in some cases. The chemical has now been banned by the EU, and the big name retailers who sold the sofas were all quite prompt when it came to issuing recalls & offering refunds.

Sofa so good?

In anycase this is the sort of hidden danger which a consumer can’t reasonably be expected to anticipate by exercising common sense, and which they should be protected from. Ok, so this is a pretty clear cut case, people looking to buy quality sofas have a reasonable right to expect that they shouldn’t be laced with unpleasant toxins. Whereas warnings about not letting heavy furniture fall on children should be pretty redundant, since, to my mind it’s rather obvious advice. Obviously there are grey areas inbetween these two examples, & I suppose those are where the slippery slope towards an over-protective nanny state starts.

Hopefully, this sets the record straight on the view I’m expressing, i.e. that people should be expected (& given the freedom) to exercise personal responsibility where possible, not, that we should live in an unregulated world where unethical manufacturers can endanger the lives of consumers if it means cutting production costs.

*No, I didn’t publish them, I’m fine with people criticising my views, but I’m not going to publish streams of profanity, or waste my time editing such comments to make them work place friendly.

The tendancy for governments to bombard us with more and more safety legislation every year is an insidious creep towards a situation where everybody is assumed to be a moron who should be wrapped in cotton wool for their own safety. Maybe this is a good thing for the “hard of thinking”, the proportion of society who really do need to be protected from themselves, but I firmly believe that, by taking a “one size fits all” approach to looking after these poor unfortunate souls, govts are encouraging everyone to be more cretinous and less likely to think for themselves in situations where some judgement might be advisable; Not to mention that blanket legislation which caters to the lowest common denominator curtails the freedoms of everybody else.

I’m sure the campaigners who get behind these causes do so with the best of intentions. Often I believe it’s because the “danger” which they seek to protect everybody from has effected their lives in some traumatic way, and that’s almost part of the problem; Nobody wants to be the one to tell these poor misguided souls that they’re over-reacting, perfectly understandable if the campaigner in question has lost a relative, but really somebody should, rather than media, and politicians, jumping on the band wagon for the sake of sales, or to gain a few points in the polls.

Someone really should be able to tell these people that sometimes bad stuff happens, and it’s just bad luck, that no-one deserves to be sued as a consequence, & no laws need to be drawn up to protect others from themselves, or cruel twists of fate, especially if those laws would curtail the freedoms of others who are willing to take personal responsibility & aren’t hurting anyone else.

Ok, so you’ve had the rant now but what was it that set me off? Actually it was this piece from an US news site. It details moves in New Jersey to introduce laws which would require manufacturers, of TVs, and furniture, over a certain size, to provide warnings about the potential dangers to children of such heavy objects falling on them, & provide advice about ways to prevent such accidents.

From the article:

The proposed rules would apply to dressers, bookcases, bureaus, armoires or similar furniture that is 42 inches or more in height and designed to store, display, or otherwise place items; televisions with display screens that are 25 inches or more; and all television stands.

Furniture can Kill! No really, it can!

That’s right apparently furniture is a hidden menace lurking in our homes! All this time you thought it was useful stuff you kept around to store things on, or in, but in reality it’s a killer, just waiting to strike!

Don’t get me wrong I don’t intend to make light of anybody dying, let alone children, but we, as a species, have survived around heavy objects for millenia without anyone needing to legislate for our own protection; Why do we suddenly need laws to protect us, & why should a manufacturer be responsible if a consumer lacks the common sense to realise that heavy stuff is dangerous if it falls on you?!? By the logic of this legislation everything we ever buy should be plastered in warnings, just on the off chance that someone might use it in some unintended but potentially lethal manner! What? you mean it’s a bad idea to insert TVs into random bodily orifaces?
I mean, really, come on, where does it all stop?

It wouldn’t be so bad but, honestly, how many people actually read the manuals for their new TVs anyway? This move seems to be purely about protecting manufacturers from the asininely litigious, a section of humanity who thoroughly deserve to be told to shut up & go away, if not locked up for wasting everyone elses time!

Anyway, you’ve been warned, so next time you’re thinking about buying furniture or a new digital TV consider the dangers it poses to others around you, especially if you have small children! Anyway I’m off to post a warning in the article I hosted about sideboards, a couple of months back, before some litigious numpty tries to sue me for not pointing out the incredibly obvious!