Value Village pulls ‘sexy’ Halloween kids costumes

http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/1188948/value-village-pulls-sexy-halloween-kids-costumes-after-b-c-mom-complains/

-metro (October 20,2014)

“We all know sex sells, but not on the backs of our children and our youth.” Value Village, a “store that promotes itself as a shopping destination for families,” was caught selling inappropriate Halloween costumes for children. Raina Delisle, the mother of a 4-year old, was looking for a firefighter costume for her daughter when she came across a shiny, tight, black costume that came with a fascinator for a helmet, and it was apparently what they called a suitable firefighter costume for little girls. She noticed that the firefighter costume for boys looked more bona fide than the one for girls, which did not look similar to the real thing at all. Shocked at the stark difference, she wrote about her experience in an online column that “sparked outrage on social media”.

It is wrong to market such sexualized clothes to young children as it can promote objectifying women and teach girls that “their bodies are more important than their brains”. Consumers, that is, families, must not let businesses make products that go against such important societal values. Stores are responsible for being ethical and keeping their products suitable for their target customer segment, but sometimes they might forget the big picture and start maximizing profits with the excuse that they are just giving consumers what they want. This happens because we, consumers, allow them to take advantage of the current issues that we have in society such as the inequality between men and women. We all need to be aware of how much influence we have on not only current trends and values, but on our youths as well, because they will be learning from what we do.

Tsilhqot’in set to declare site of New Prosperity mine a tribal park

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Unilateral+park+declared+Tsilhqot+includes+Prosperity+mine/10192766/story.html

– Vancouver Sun (September 11, 2014)

 “…. the mine would result in the loss of Little Fish Lake to a 12-square-kilometre tailings pond and contaminate nearby Fish Lake and the upper Fish Creek system.”

Based on this article, Taseko Mines Ltd. will not be running their “New Prosperity copper-gold project” any time soon. The $1.1 billion project has come to a halt due to the Tsilhqot’in people ardently opposing the idea of a mine being built near the lake. Fish Lake is not legally recognized as First Nation property, but the natives “have now folded the mine site into the tribal park boundary.”

Taseko should have been expecting some opposition from the Tsilhqot’in if they had done some serious research of the surrounding areas. The fact that they had originally planned to destroy the whole lake proves that being environmentally friendly is not part of their value proposition. It would be unusual if they did, being the large mining company that they are, but it does not mean that it is impossible for them to have a hand in protecting the environment. As Dave Williams suggested, Taseko could plan for smaller-scale activities such as “sustainable logging with portable mills… to provide employment for natives.”

True, being environmentally safe does not mean that Taseko will be able to make much profit. But carrying out such a large-scale project without some kind of restriction on how much damage they could cause would seriously harm the sustainability of the ecosystem and the lives of those who depend on the natural cycle of the habitats within. Even if the damage is minimal, it would contribute to the total amount of contamination and pollution on the earth in the long-run. If Taseko cared about the environment, they would create a third proposition that would involve collaborating with the Tsilqot’in in keeping the many stakeholders safe.

Candy Crush Soda Saga: will it pop King’s app store bubble?

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/20/candy-crush-soda-saga-king

– theguardian.com (Monday 20 October 20)

“It might be the biggest, but the original game has peaked.” According to financial results of this year, Candy Crush, one of the top ranking games in the app store, is expecting the number of its “monthly unique players” (paying customers) to gradually decline during the second half of this year. Although new levels are constantly being updated, the structure of the game has basically stayed the same, and it is not as attractive as it used to be when it first came out. In hopes of gaining more players, King will be releasing a new game next month, called “Candy Crush Soda Saga”. It will not be a sequel to Candy Crush, but “an additional title for the people who love Candy Crush” that can be played side by side with the original game.”

Personally, I think King would be better off creating a brand new game rather than investing in another puzzle game that is basically Candy Crush with the addition of Soda bottles. As a fan of the classic Bejeweled game, Candy Crush is no different than an imitator that chose to fiddle with an existing idea instead of generating an innovative one. In the app store, a red ocean always filled with copies and doppelgangers of popular apps, a completely new and unique app is always a welcome sight. King will have to work harder to face the growing competition in the app store with most apps having social networks and being more accessible on different platforms; qualities that used to be the points of difference for only a select few has now become points of parity for most apps.

“Ford is recalling about 850,000 cars and SUVs because of a problem that could stop the air bags from working in a crash.” Imagine the cost of recalling all the cars that Ford has sold in North America over the past year. However, their call for quick action was a wise decision on their part as they could save possibly millions on compensation claims from accidents. Luckily, when Ford discovered this defection no crashes had been reported, but something critical like dysfunctional airbags would be fatal to the company’s reputation.

As an ex-Ford user, I remember how easily and often their cars would break down. Repairs were not cheap either, and I was greatly disappointed with their product. If Ford is trying to provide inexpensive vehicles to Canadians, I’m afraid that they have not been very successful so far. A possible reason for their faulty vehicles would be that they are using cheap parts and materials in order to reduce their manufacturing costs. It’s understandable that companies would want to reduce all costs if possible, but there are certain things that customers expect from all automobile companies, and that is a safe vehicle for our families to ride in. In my opinion, Ford needs to work on their value proposition: will they continue reducing manufacturing costs or should they start focusing on delivering better quality products to their customers?