Data Info

Primark S S 11

So ive seen a few blog posts about this already, but if you watch my videos on You Tube, youll know I have a slight obsession with Primark! So was really excited to see the PR Shots of some of the pieces we can look forward to come this Spring. Heres a few of my favourite images:

Available link for download

Play S A W T 2 Game!

If you ask an average gamer to explain the focus of real-time strategy games youll probably be told that the two most important elements are resource management and building a better combat force than your foe. With few exceptions, thats been the rule ever since Westwoods Dune II. What most people dont realize is that the real-time strategy game goes as far back as the original home computers. Combat Leader and NATO Commander were both golden age real-time games, focusing on managing troops in real time without concerning themselves with resource gathering. Real time creates a realistic situation where you must assess and react to threats instantaneously, a perfect setting for tactical simulations. It causes you to be proactive and to be constantly thinking, which is exactly what Sierras SWAT 2 aims for, and, sometimes, it hits the mark. For the most part, though, SWAT 2 simply shoots itself in the foot.


<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsIHYBx3bwE5EqXq9Kz0PF7evbJsfQ8KG1GqLtE40mxQ4ZyK72tf_fZyTB8R-_F9SngBlMiwssNyG9N2SKZKnQLW6f0pX031vTI-ZLEcxYWskdqwSJvrP-YLiJFWZBApHn2v3HQc2CjkaZ/s1600/swat2.png">

Available link for download

On S P Downgrades and Idiots

This is not going to be one of those posts that laments S&P’s decision to downgrade the US, but then says that S&P was probably right about our oh-so-dysfunctional political system.

No, S&P was flat-out wrong — no caveats. They are, to put it very bluntly, idiots, and they deserve every bit of opprobrium coming their way. They were embarrassingly wrong on the basic budget numbers, as everyone knows now, so they were forced to remove that section from their report, and change their rationale for the downgrade. (Always a sign that you’re dealing with hacks.)

S&P’s rationale for the downgrade now is based entirely on their subjective political judgement — and their political judgement is wrong. The brilliant political minds over at S&P said that “the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges.”

That sounds like a Very Serious and Sober assessment, but it’s really not. It’s true that the debt limit debate was ridiculous, and that a large contingent of Tea Party freshmen in the House were threatening to not raise the debt ceiling. But here’s the thing: we still raised the debt ceiling, and in such a way that this Congress won’t have the opportunity to use the debt ceiling as a political bargaining chip again.

S&P’s assessment is only remotely serious if you assume that this particular Congress, with its huge contingent of crazy Tea Partiers, is going to serve in perpetuity. But this Congress isn’t going to serve in perpetuity — there are elections next year, and many of the Tea Party freshmen are likely to lose. They won in 2010 because it was a “wave election” in the middle of a very severe economic slump. But 2012 is a presidential election cycle with an incumbent Democratic president. A lot of these Tea Partiers who won in traditionally Democratic districts (and swing districts) are going to lose. In fact, it’s probably even odds that the Dems take back the House.

The simple fact is that the Tea Partiers are almost certainly at the height of their power in this Congress. And no, the debt ceiling debate doesn’t reflect some sort of secular change in US policymaking — the next time there’s a Republican president, House Republicans will be all about raising the debt ceiling, and Democrats won’t engage in the same kind of political brinksmanship. You’d have to be stunningly naïve not to believe this.

There have also been plenty of political de-escalations over the years — Republicans didn’t shut down the government every year after 1995, for instance. After Tom DeLay won the Medicare Part D vote by holding the vote open for 3 hours, everyone claimed that this would be the new normal on all controversial votes. Didn’t happen. There are plenty of one-off political confrontations. Simply assuming that every political confrontation represents a secular change in US politics and policymaking is ridiculous.

(S&P tries to side-step this obvious weakness in their so-called “argument” by claiming that by the time the 2012 elections roll around, it will be too late. Please. The idea that we have to act in the next 18 months in order to meaningfully affect our long-term solvency is patently absurd.)

Look, I know these S&P guys. Not these particular guys — I don’t know John Chambers or David Beers personally. But I know the rating agencies intimately. Back when I was an in-house lawyer for an investment bank, I had extensive interactions with all three rating agencies. We needed to get a lot of deals rated, and I was almost always involved in that process in the deals I worked on. To say that S&P analysts aren’t the sharpest tools in the drawer is a massive understatement.

Naturally, before meeting with a rating agency, we would plan out our arguments — you want to make sure you’re making your strongest arguments, that everyone is on the same page about the deal’s positive attributes, etc. With S&P, it got to the point where we were constantly saying, “that’s a good point, but is S&P smart enough to understand that argument?” I kid you not, that was a hard-constraint in our game-plan. With Moody’s and Fitch, we at least were able to assume that the analysts on our deals would have a minimum level of financial competence.

I’ve seen S&P make far more basic mistakes than the one they made in miscalculating the US’s debt-to-GDP ratio. I’ve seen an S&P managing director who didn’t know the order of operations, and when we pointed it out to him, stopped taking our calls. Despite impressive-sounding titles, these guys personify “amateur hour.” (And my opinion of S&P isn’t just based on a few deals; it’s based on countless deals, meetings, and phone calls over 20 years. It’s also the opinion of practically everyone else who deals with the rating agencies on a semi-regular basis.)

Treasury has every right to be outraged. S&P mangled the economic argument so badly that they had to abandon it entirely, and then fell back on a political argument which they are in no position to make, and which isn’t even correct.

So to S&P, I say: you should be ashamed of yourselves, and I truly hope this is your downfall.

Available link for download

Oliver S Hopscotch Skirt Pattern Hack Tutorial

If your interested in sewing clothing for little girls and haven’t come across the Oliver + S Hopscotch pattern, then allow me to introduce you! The skirt, in particular, is a wonderful, timeless garment that has perfect proportions and great details. However, it only really works in solid fabrics or prints with a small-scale design. The skirt’s button placket and clever pleated pockets would most likely chew up a larger design of print. But wait! I have the answer: an incredibly simple pattern hack that turns the Hopscotch skirt pattern into the ideal canvas for fabric with a bold print. We’re going to ignore the pockets and omit the button stand.


In fact, I may be cheeky even alluding to this as a pattern hack. Because we’re not actually going to alter the pattern pieces at all: we’re just going to use them slightly differently and alter the construction method a tad. Aside from being able to now use this pattern for a wider range of fabric designs, it also pretty much halves the construction time. Which may appeal to you, whether you’re creating wardrobe staples for your little girl, or whipping up a cute gift for someone else’s!

You will need: 

• Oliver + S Hopscotch sewing pattern 
• Fabric (I used about 50cm to make size 3T, more may be required for larger sizes, narrower fabric or larger repeat designs) 
• Thread 
• 3/4" or 20mm wide elastic 

Trace the pattern pieces in the size that you require to preserve the other sizes for future projects. For this hacked version of the pattern, you will only need the front skirt piece, back skirt piece and front waistband piece.


When positioning the pieces on your fabric, ignore the ‘cut 2’ direction on the front skirt piece and front waistband piece. Instead, position these two pieces on a fold (like the back skirt piece) as pictured above. You’ll need to trust me on this: the dimensions of these pattern pieces mean that, even though you are using them on the fold and omitting the button stand, the measurements of the finished skirt will remain the same as if you made the regular version of this skirt pattern.

Once you have cut out the pieces, snip a tiny notch at the centre fold on the bottom edge of the front waistband piece, and another tiny notch at the centre front fold at the top edge of the front skirt piece. These notches will be matched up during construction.


The main difference in the construction of this hacked version is that you will now be making one front skirt panel (see above), rather than two. Gather the top edge of the front skirt piece and apply it to the front waistband piece, and continue the construction as per the rest of the instructions.


Congratulations! You have made the ideal gathered skirt, AND saved yourself some precious sewing time. Now, stop being so selfless and get back to making something for you!

Available link for download