Your result for The Fashion Style Test...

Glamorous Soul

24% Flamboyance, 47% Originality, 68% Deliberateness, 59% Sexiness

[Tasteful Original Deliberate Sexy]



You choose your outfits carefully according to many criteria. You don't like looking cheap, dull or random and you go to great lengths to avoid this. You are successful, too. People admire your taste and sex appeal. Many try to imitate you but not many can recreate your unique style. Sometimes, however, they find you too intimidating to approach. If you don't wear retro style yet, perhaps you should consider it. It would become greatly your sexy, mysterious self.


The opposite style from yours is Fashion Enemy [Flamboyant Conventional Random Prissy].




All the categories: Librarian Sporty Hottie Office Master Uptown Girl/ Boy Brainy Student Movie Star Fashionista Glamorous Soul Fashion Enemy Bar Cruiser Kid Next Door Sex Bomb Hippie Kid Fashion Rebel Fashion Artist Catwalk God(ess)

Take The Fashion Style Test at HelloQuizzy

Euro-2008 1/4 finals

The Russian squad has beat Sweden 2:0 and qualified for the quarter-finals, for the first time in 20 years.

I am wondering if it will generate a renewed upsurge of 'patriotism' (read chauvinism) and eventually be mentioned in the 'victory' sequence, next to ice hockey, handball, Eurovision contest and whatever.

Winning all those is an incredible and rewarding experience. The only thing I regret to be missing here is the connection a) of all these items (the link between Dima Bilan and football) b) to the whole "Russia is standing back up from its knees" rhetoric of the propaganda.

Each of said events is valuable in its own right, without loading them with any extra meanings which somehow devalues them and draws attention away from individual achievements.

Yay! Andrey Zaliznyak receives the State Prize of Russia

The State Prize this year was awarded to - among others - Alisa Freindlich, Jacques Chirac, Andrey Zaliznyak, and an unnamed physicist.

It seems to be one of the rare occasions where a linguist's contribution has been acknowledged, with the balance always being tilted towards hardcore science. Now the balance is promising to be restored, although hopefully not reversed.

Another issue here is that person whose identity could not be revealed because he works at some top secret institution or on top secret projects, or more likely - both.

See full list >

Procrastinating

You Should Get a PhD in Liberal Arts (like political science, literature, or philosophy)

You're a great thinker and a true philosopher. You'd make a talented professor or writer.

What Advanced Degree Should You Get?

Your Brain is 60% Female, 40% Male

Your brain is a healthy mix of male and female You are both sensitive and savvy Rational and reasonable, you tend to keep level headed But you also tend to wear your heart on your sleeve

What Gender Is Your Brain?

Whither, then, are you speeding, O Russia of mine

Inflation in Russia has reached 8% since the beginning of this year. Since the beginning of June alone it has been 0.4% which is twice the amount from the same period last year.

WTF, or My Take on Pop Sci

I had an appointment with my supervisor today. Someone who has no idea about the research I'm writing about and a way too strong attraction to lay person-like vague statements, like "Oh, they Germans are so punctual, it's just in their mentality to love order and neatness".

Virtually all the literature I am using I found myself; to be fair, she did recommend a book to me once. She said it would suffice for the theoretical part...

Now the papers I have found, based on sound qualitative and quantitative methods with straightforward statistical measurements and conclusions, - now she basically wants me to give it all up. Well, don't give the details of the experiments - just include the results.

But isn't it the methods, the nuances in the set-up what research is pretty much all about?

No, this way it looks like pop sci, she said. It is not the proper scholarly way to write.

I am failing to see how providing details about the studies one is citing makes the paper less scholarly. For me it's just the other way round: it's not the details but lack thereof which turns a paper into endless looping philosophizing.

The feat I am about to accomplish

1. Стилистика
2. психология
   
3. филологический анализ текста
4. экономика
   
5. спецкурс "Современная русская литература"
   
6. история языкознания
7. 1 ия (нем)
8. 2 ия (англ)
9. теория языка
10. контрастивная лингвистика
11. история образования
12. рус. литература и культура (*2)
    
13. технические и аудиовизуальные средства обучения
    
14. социальная психология
15. психология развития
16. педагогич. психология
17. технологии и методики обучения иностр. языкам
18. основы медицинских знаний
19. теор. педагогика
20. практ. педагогика
21. гос. экзамен по педагогике: "отлично с отличием"
22. отчет о производственной практике по первому иностранному языку
    
23. выпускная квалификационная работа

Not just a 1930s one I'm afraid...

28 As a 1930s wife, I am Poor Take the test!