half goon half god

Archive for March, 2007|Monthly archive page

LOLCATS

In Uncategorized on March 29, 2007 at 9:31 pm

(Click for biggering)
cat error

LOLCATS!

Cats Make Downtime Fun!

Installing is Fun!

In Uncategorized on March 28, 2007 at 8:31 pm

uno installation

A good example of why I love Macs. Why go through a series of windows asking you where you want to install and whether everything’s OK, when you can have a friendly, automatically-launched window like this? Drag & Drop is your friend! He’ll show the way!

Bears

In Uncategorized on March 24, 2007 at 11:33 pm

0,,5427349,00
I don’t know why people don’t like bears.

(image from news.com.au)

goonTUNES

In Uncategorized on March 24, 2007 at 11:21 pm

If you have a look to the right of this page, you’ll see that there is a new section, entitled (quite cleverly, if I do say so myself) goonTUNES! It’s where all my music stuff will be from now on. Music stuff as in reviews and ramblings. Not original compositions. Because that requires effort and some degree of talent.

Have a look! It’s won’t surprise you!

Countdown to the Chaser

In Uncategorized on March 24, 2007 at 8:21 pm

Well, it seems that titling my last post ‘Countdown to the Chaser’ has had unexpected consequences…

(Click for bigger image)
search results

Somehow, Live Search has ME at the top of the list for the search term ‘Countdown to the Chaser’! I can’t for the life of me figure out why this is so. Especially when the actual Countdown to the Chaser page is number six, behind two entries for Europe’s ‘The Final Countdown’!

Thankyou, Live Search, for giving me preference over the real talent.

Oh yeah, http://www.countdowntothechaser.com.au is still up and still as entertaining. Have a look!

Countdown to the Chaser

In Uncategorized on March 14, 2007 at 11:09 pm

http://www.countdowntothechaser.com.au

It’s a live countdown until The Chaser returns to TV at 9 PM, Wednesday April 28 on ABC.

24 hours of people sitting in front of a camera attempting to entertain while counting seconds. Thrilling viewing.

Changing Room (again!)

In Uncategorized on March 3, 2007 at 5:00 pm

We’ve finally put the shelves up! Personally, I think they look totally rad.

(The pic’s a bit larger than usual, so click to see the whole thing.)

Sweets Review – Part Two

In Uncategorized on March 2, 2007 at 11:04 am

Peanut butter. America’s favourite chocolate accessory. Just about every chocolate has a peanut butter variant. I don’t understand it one little bit. What I also don’t understand is the ability for two candies to coexist while being so incredibly alike. So I’ve got a bag of Reese’s Pieces and a bag of Peanut Butter M&Ms to see just how this is possible.

My only exposure to Reese’s Pieces so far is from the movie E.T. The Extraterrestrial, where the kid lured E.T. into the house by giving him chocolate. I’ve tried Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups as well, but as far as I know, they’re a different thing.

Reese’s Pieces are quite small, round little discs, just like M&Ms, but (for obvious reasons) don’t have ‘m’ printed on them. They’re also slightly irregular, not as smoothly curved as I’d expect. The candy shell s quite thin, and when bitten into, rather sharp. There’s a slightly chocolatey taste, but strangely enough, upon examination, there is no chocolate within! Each piece is essentially a peanut butter pellet. This is a surprise to me, as I assumed that all sweets in this category contain chocolate. Though there is the distinct taste of peanuts, the peanut butter is dry, almost powdery, feeling more like some sort of fudge than peanut butter. It is also very sugary, also adding to its fudgelike quality.

Peanut Butter M&Ms are noticeably larger than Reese’s Pieces, both in diameter and thickness. The difference is about 50%. The shell is much smoother than that of Reese’s Pieces as well. Like regular M&Ms (and its other variants), Peanut Butter M&Ms have an outer layer of chocolate, with the peanut butter forming the center. This makes for a more pleasing taste, as the peanut butter melds with the chocolate flavour. The peanut butter has a slightly oily consistency, with a touch of saltiness, almost like regular peanut butter. It is also much more flavoursome than its equivalent in Reese’s Pieces.

Basically, the Peanut Butter M&M is a whole lot nicer than Reese’s Pieces. The flavour and consistency of the M&M is much higher quality, as it tastes and feels like peanut butter, whereas Reese’s Pieces are overly sugary and dry.

—–

The Baby Ruth bar is one of those iconic American chocolates. You hear about them all the time in movies and books and stuff. It is thought to be named after the baseball player Babe Ruth, but as it was manufactured before Babe Ruth became hugely famous, this isn’t the case. In actual fact, it was named after a baby called Ruth. I don’t know whose baby it was, or even why this happened.

Anyway, Nestle (the company behind Baby Ruth) is running a competition running in which you can win 5 million dollars. On the instructions on the back, it says:

Carefully open wrapper to see if you have won instantly and for a game code to play the online game. NO PURCHASE NECESSARY.

So they’re asking you to open the chocolates without purchasing them! Way to go, Nestle!

The Baby Ruth looks much like the Australian Picnic bar. All mis-shapen and lumpy. It smells of sweetened chocolate. However, it’s not very much like a Picnic on the inside. Rather, it’s a sort of chewy concoction of nougat, caramel and peanuts. Basically, it’s like a mutated Snickers.

The caramel is negated by the thick taste and mouth-feel of the nougat, while the peanuts are hidden away on the sides, making for an imbalanced flavour. The chocolate coating is also incredibly sweet – you can almost feel the sugar, but the slight salt of the peanuts (which are half-stuck in the chocolate) cuts the sugar taste down. But only marginally. The Baby Ruth is also quite crumbly, as it isn’t held together by much. It’s not so much a mixture of ingredients, but rather a length of nougat with bits stuck around it.

While Baby Ruth tastes good, it’s not great. The sugary chocolate leaves a strange feel in the mouth and throat, and the peanuts leave me wanting more peanuts. Also, though it tastes like a Snickers, and is about the same size as a Snickers, it doesn’t provide the same feeling of satisfaction a Snickers often does. A decent chocolate, but I don’t think it deserves so much of the fame it holds.

—–

And that’s it for my Sweets Reviews!

Just to round up, I quite enjoyed Peanut Butter M&Ms, liked Baby Ruth, didn’t think much of Scottish Soft Rock or Reese’s Pieces, found Barratt’s Sherbet Fountain frustrating, and Tizer quite nauseating.

I might do another one of these some day, but not with as many sweets. I have quite a headache, and I was feeling a tad unwell last night. I wouldn’t recommend doing this sort of thing every week, and I salute all those people who run blogs that focus on sweets, because I could never do it on a daily basis

Just to repeat, I bought everything I talked about in these reviews from:

Chocolates On Parade
Shop 10 Norwood Mall
The Parade, Norwood SA

They’ve only opened recently, but sure do have a great selection of imported and local confectionery (and crisps!).

Thanks for reading, and Goodnight!

Sweets Review – Part One

In Uncategorized on March 1, 2007 at 3:03 pm

This is Part One of my Sweets Review. It’s unnamed because I can’t think of a good name for it. So ‘Sweets Review’ will have to do. In this part, I’ll focus on the sugary stuff I found. Part Two will focus on the chocolates.

All products reviewed were obtained from

Chocolates On Parade
Shop 10 Norwood Mall
The Parade, Norwood SA

(Yes, I paid for them. This is not an advertisement! But it is a very good store.)

First up – Scottish Soft Rock. It looks like regular Blackpool Rock, but it’s smaller, pinker, and doesn’t have writing through it. It also doesn’t hail from Blackpool (hence the name). It doesn’t have a consistent shape, either. Though it’s tubular, the ends are irregular, and what look like air bubbles down one side.

It has quite a sweet smell. Floral, but with a hint of berry. Maybe a bit too sweet smelling, however.

Upon biting into the rock, I’m surprised. My understanding of soft rock was that it’s supposed to be of a chewy consistency, like a Redskin or a toffee, as opposed to the solid, tooth-breaking, boiled consistency of Blackpool rock. However, this rock is rather chalky, like a musk-stick. While it’s not unpleasant, it doesn’t feel right, for some reason. It dissolves in the mouth surprisingly quickly on account of the myriad air bubbles within, with very little effort. this also does not feel right.

Taste-wise, it’s definitely berry-flavoured. Not any specific berry, but very similar to mixed-berry yoghurt. However, it’s much too mild (though this may be due to the chalkiness). There’s some aftertaste, but dissipates within minutes. Again, while this isn’t unpleasant, it’s not incredible. About halfway through the stick, there is a noticeable sticky feeling in the mouth. I can tell you, this is definitely unpleasant.

My verdict? Well, it’s rather bland. Nothing about the Scottish Soft Rock really jumps out as a highlight. While it’s pleasant enough, you wouldn’t actually eat this for the taste, the novelty, or even for the mouth-feel (definitely not for the mouth-feel). I can’t be sure why it exists.

—–

The Barratt Sherbet Fountain is a sadly overlooked treat nowadays. It’s such a simple concept – cardboard tube of sherbet, eaten with the help of a licorice stick. And there may be a good reason for this – It doesn’t always work. Opening my Sherbet Fountain, I find the licorice stick trapped in a hardened lump of sherbet, only able to be freed with much squeezing of the cardboard. Sugar consumption shouldn’t be this difficult.

The other problem is that licorice is not a reliable dipping tool. As it’s quite a soft substance, it bends when it hits the sherbet, instead of slicing through and catching a decent amount of the fizzy sugar. This is why Wizz-Fizz was so popular – the dipper was plastic, and hard enough to probe the sherbet.

Though I would like to be able to say I’m enjoying this Sherbet Fountain, I’m afraid I can’t. Why? Because there’s little payoff for the amount of work put in to catching the sherbet. The licorice is much too bendy to have any scooping power, only picking up a few particles on its tip. This bendiness only increases over time, as holding the licorice only serves to heat it up. Furthermore, the licorice flavour is much too strong and salty, effectively overpowering the delicate fizz of what little sherbet it delivers.

The sherbet, with its lemony fizz, leaves a freshness in the mouth, though it is negated by the earthy tones of the licorice.

Quite simply, the Barratt Sherbet Fountain is a good (or even great) concept, but poorly implemented. Licorice is not a good eating tool, and especially not in conjunction with sherbet. However, eating the licorice then the sherbet separately is a bit of fun.

—–

Tizer. A drink that I’ve known about since I was three years old, but one which I’ve never tasted. According to the slogan on the can, it tastes red. It smells excruciatingly sweet, which can probably be explained by the sugar and sweetener that are both listed on the can.

It’s highly carbonated, much fizzier than Coca Cola or any sorts of soft drink we have here in Australia. I don’t usually feel the need to burp after drinking soft drink, but Tizer brings this feeling on after a few small sips.

How does it taste? Well, it tastes like sugar. There’s no real flavour to Tizer except for that of ‘sweet’. It could be said to be a tiny bit fruity, but whatever fruity taste there is, it’s overshadowed by the cloying stickiness of the sugar. It is actually making me feel nauseous, and I have a bit of a headache.

So, after waiting eighteen years for it, I can safely say that I never want to drink Tizer again. It’s like drinking carbonated cough syrup. Blech!

—–

OK, that’s the sugary sweets done. I have a headache. Yuk. Chocolates on their way!