Today, Canadian coffee-giant Tim Hortons officially added Lattes to their menu in Ontario stores. The lattes, which are priced at $2 for a 10 oz medium, come in the trademark brown Tim Hortons paper cup, and have one of those lids where it's just a little slot for you to drink out of instead of that annoying brown lid where you have to push back the thing and it never seems to stay down. Of course, the lattes come in several different flavours (the same flavours that the Tim Hortons Hot Smoothees are served in) including Caramel, French Vanilla, and my personal favorite - Hazelnut.
For some stupid reason because I wasn't paying attention when I ordered it, I bought a French Vanilla instead of Hazelnut. But to be honest, the flavour shot isn't very strong anyway in the lattes, so it doesn't make that much of a difference.
While the new fancy drinks have received some lukewarm reviews from avid Starbucks drinkers, I disagree. Personally, I hate Starbucks, I think they're drinks are bitter and too complex, which is why I was really surprised with the simplicity, and deliciousness of the new lattes at Tim's.
When I first took a sip of the latte, I wasn't very impressed, but then I decided to stir it and add a little bit of sugar (there was already some sugar in it but Tim Hortons seems to constantly forget to stir my coffee) and it made all the difference.
Even if you are a Starbucks fan, or just a coffee lover in general, I would reccommend checking the new Timmies latte out, because those $4 dollar Starbucks lattes are just ripping money out of your pocket, and you'll be saving $2 just by switching to Tim's.
Overall Rating of Tim's French Vanilla latte: 8.5/10
Monday, November 14, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
PTC is stupid
The Parents Television Council has been freaking out and voicing their irrelevant opinions and fining television networks since 1995. On their website, the PTC states that their mission is to "promote and restore responsibility and decency to the entertainment industry in answer to America's demand for positive, family-oriented television programming." I really do feel sorry for the idiots that run this organization, because for some reason they feel that if a television program is rated 14+ and has a viewer discretion advisory notice before the broadcast, it still needs to be "decent". They also file complaints against networks when they use words like "fuck".
I don't even know where to begin in this rant. First of all, PTC says that they're mission is to make sure television programming is "family oriented" even though families don't even watch these programs together, and the programs are targeted and promoted to adult audiences. I don't think there is/should be a law about profane words and content on television in the United States, and if the programs are being targeted to adults and include a 14+ rating in that little black box that shows up in the corner, then what else does FTC want the networks to do? It seems as if you can't watch anything these days without there being something bleeped out. When is PTC going to realize that this is just the world and that these children go to school and live in the real world - in reality, children know what profane words are not just from television (because television doesn't affect children's words and behaviour at all) and god dammit, they here the profane words from their parents and adults themselves. I think their parents and peers have a much bigger influence on the children than a dirty television program. Does PTC think that the thought that the world is full of rainbows and butterflies and fantasies and dreams exist should be maintained in Children's heads? If kids had more profanity and inappropriate things in their life, they would accept it and it wouldn't affect them at all, but no, PTC has to make sure that they sugar coat everything.
All in all, the PTC are a bunch of senseless, cotton candy-headed, nosy morons that need to mind their own business and put their efforts and money in more important things, and not just the profane word that a 10-year-old kid heard on television last Sunday, that they completely ignored because they hear it all the time in school.
Here's a place to put your money and stupid efforts, PTC: To the Red Cross, who try to help out children that don't have television, in the first place. I'm sure they need your money a whole lot than a bunch of stupid, overprotective crap organizations that you're wasting all your money on.
PTC, grow up and get a life.
I don't even know where to begin in this rant. First of all, PTC says that they're mission is to make sure television programming is "family oriented" even though families don't even watch these programs together, and the programs are targeted and promoted to adult audiences. I don't think there is/should be a law about profane words and content on television in the United States, and if the programs are being targeted to adults and include a 14+ rating in that little black box that shows up in the corner, then what else does FTC want the networks to do? It seems as if you can't watch anything these days without there being something bleeped out. When is PTC going to realize that this is just the world and that these children go to school and live in the real world - in reality, children know what profane words are not just from television (because television doesn't affect children's words and behaviour at all) and god dammit, they here the profane words from their parents and adults themselves. I think their parents and peers have a much bigger influence on the children than a dirty television program. Does PTC think that the thought that the world is full of rainbows and butterflies and fantasies and dreams exist should be maintained in Children's heads? If kids had more profanity and inappropriate things in their life, they would accept it and it wouldn't affect them at all, but no, PTC has to make sure that they sugar coat everything.
All in all, the PTC are a bunch of senseless, cotton candy-headed, nosy morons that need to mind their own business and put their efforts and money in more important things, and not just the profane word that a 10-year-old kid heard on television last Sunday, that they completely ignored because they hear it all the time in school.
Here's a place to put your money and stupid efforts, PTC: To the Red Cross, who try to help out children that don't have television, in the first place. I'm sure they need your money a whole lot than a bunch of stupid, overprotective crap organizations that you're wasting all your money on.
PTC, grow up and get a life.
Monday, November 7, 2011
UPDATE: Bieber to take paternity test, results to be issued December 15
Justin Bieber has agreed to take a paternity test to end the rumors that stated that he fathered the child of Mariah Yeater. Bieber claims that if the paternity tests come back negative, he will seek legal action of his own against Yeater.
As we recently reported earlier this month, 20-year-old Yeater claims that Bieber allegedly impregnated her back in October 2010 in an arena bathroom at the Staples Center, when he had been performing there. Yeater is seeking child support and demanding a paternity test.
Bieber is scheduled to take a paternity test soon and will have it submitted to a lab in two weeks, to end the rumors once and for all. Bieber called the rumors "crap" last night, as he accepted an MTV European Music Award, saying "There's been a lot of crap on the Internet lately, but I've pulled through it."
If things go as planned, we should have the real answer on December 15. Until then, feel free to speculate and voice your opinions in our comment box. Also, if you're tweeting about the allegations, add the hashtag #FirstStopBabyMama so we can read about your opinions.
As we recently reported earlier this month, 20-year-old Yeater claims that Bieber allegedly impregnated her back in October 2010 in an arena bathroom at the Staples Center, when he had been performing there. Yeater is seeking child support and demanding a paternity test.
Bieber is scheduled to take a paternity test soon and will have it submitted to a lab in two weeks, to end the rumors once and for all. Bieber called the rumors "crap" last night, as he accepted an MTV European Music Award, saying "There's been a lot of crap on the Internet lately, but I've pulled through it."
If things go as planned, we should have the real answer on December 15. Until then, feel free to speculate and voice your opinions in our comment box. Also, if you're tweeting about the allegations, add the hashtag #FirstStopBabyMama so we can read about your opinions.
The Verdict is in: Dr. Conrad Murray found guilty of involuntary manslaughter
Just moments ago, Dr. Conrad Murray (Michael Jackson's private doctor) was proclaimed guilty of involuntary manslaughter for Jackson's June 2009 death.
Jackson's sister, LaToya Jackson screamed out immediately upon hearing the 1:17pm (PDT) verdict, while Jackson fans celebrated the vedict outside of the courtroom. All of the 12 jurors had agreed with the verdict. The 58-year-old doctor is scheduled to be sentenced on November 29th, and could face up to four years in prison. He could also lose his medical license. The prosecution ordered Murray to be taken into custody immediately.
Jackson had been suffering insomnia, and Murray proceeded to give him doses of anesthetic propofol (which is not supposed to be used outside of operation/surgery rooms) as well as some other sedatives to Jackson as he was unable to sleep to prepare for his upcoming final concert tour, This Is It. Murray's lawyers originally stated that Jackson had given himself a dose of the propofol while Murray wasn't looking making Jackson responsible for his own death, however this theory was dismissed by a prosecution expert. Murray stated that he had formed a close friendship with the 50-year-old pop singer, and never intended to harm him.
Jackson was found dead in bed at his rented California mansion on July 25, 2009, and was expected to have died during the night. Jackson had searched for a doctor that would agree to give him the propofol, as he was deeply craving sleep, and other medical professionals turned him down. For six weeks, Murray gave Jackson a nightly dose of propofol, but became reluctant to give him the medication eventually, fearing that Jackson had become addicted to the drug. The night of his death, Murray gave Jackson a small dose of the drug (25 milligrams) which seemed to put the singer to sleep. Murray left Jackson's bedside for a few moments. When he returned, Jackson was already dead.
If you're still on Murray's side, this will be the part where you'll switch sides: When Murray found Jackson unconscious, he proceeded to perform CPR on Jackson's bed, instead of on the firm floor. When Jackson did not respond, Murray proceeded to hide and pack up the medicine bottles and IV equipment and nervously made several calls on his mobile phone, before calling emergency services.
Authorities never accused Murray of intending to kill the star, and it took eight months for authorities to file the involuntary manslaughter charges against Murray. The authorities stated that giving Jackson the doses of propofol was a terrible idea, as Murray had been lacking lifesaving equipment, which led to the disastrous tragedy of Jackson's death.
As for the mystery of what happened behind the closed doors of Jackson's bedroom on that day - we will probably never know.
Jackson's sister, LaToya Jackson screamed out immediately upon hearing the 1:17pm (PDT) verdict, while Jackson fans celebrated the vedict outside of the courtroom. All of the 12 jurors had agreed with the verdict. The 58-year-old doctor is scheduled to be sentenced on November 29th, and could face up to four years in prison. He could also lose his medical license. The prosecution ordered Murray to be taken into custody immediately.
Jackson had been suffering insomnia, and Murray proceeded to give him doses of anesthetic propofol (which is not supposed to be used outside of operation/surgery rooms) as well as some other sedatives to Jackson as he was unable to sleep to prepare for his upcoming final concert tour, This Is It. Murray's lawyers originally stated that Jackson had given himself a dose of the propofol while Murray wasn't looking making Jackson responsible for his own death, however this theory was dismissed by a prosecution expert. Murray stated that he had formed a close friendship with the 50-year-old pop singer, and never intended to harm him.
Jackson was found dead in bed at his rented California mansion on July 25, 2009, and was expected to have died during the night. Jackson had searched for a doctor that would agree to give him the propofol, as he was deeply craving sleep, and other medical professionals turned him down. For six weeks, Murray gave Jackson a nightly dose of propofol, but became reluctant to give him the medication eventually, fearing that Jackson had become addicted to the drug. The night of his death, Murray gave Jackson a small dose of the drug (25 milligrams) which seemed to put the singer to sleep. Murray left Jackson's bedside for a few moments. When he returned, Jackson was already dead.
If you're still on Murray's side, this will be the part where you'll switch sides: When Murray found Jackson unconscious, he proceeded to perform CPR on Jackson's bed, instead of on the firm floor. When Jackson did not respond, Murray proceeded to hide and pack up the medicine bottles and IV equipment and nervously made several calls on his mobile phone, before calling emergency services.
Authorities never accused Murray of intending to kill the star, and it took eight months for authorities to file the involuntary manslaughter charges against Murray. The authorities stated that giving Jackson the doses of propofol was a terrible idea, as Murray had been lacking lifesaving equipment, which led to the disastrous tragedy of Jackson's death.
As for the mystery of what happened behind the closed doors of Jackson's bedroom on that day - we will probably never know.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
"Paranormal Activity 3" Review
Today, we are reviewing Paranormal Activity 3, the third installment in the Paranormal Activity series.
While most horror sequels (and sequels in general) seem to be worse then the originals, this film is an exception. Honestly, I have never understood all the hype surrounding the first film - sure, the first was good, but it didn't have me jumping out of my seat and laughing at how scared I was as many times as I had hoped it would.
Paranormal Activity 3 is a haunted house thrill ride delight, and the film manages to still be outstanding without using the creepy, cheesy background music that most horror films are plagued with. With exceptional acting, and tons of thrills and jolts, the film is undeniably the best in the series, and some would even go as far as to say that it's the best horror film of the year.
However, we are dissapointed that the film did not include several of the scenes that appeared in the trailer in the film. This includes pretty much the entire first 40 seconds of the original trailer. What was really dissapointing - the Bloody Mary scene between the 2 girls in the trailer that made up about half of the trailer for the 3rd film didn't even appear in the film. So really, about 5 seconds of the footage from the trailer actually appeared in the film.
RATING:
Acting: 8/10
Plot: 7/10
Overall rating: 7/10
While most horror sequels (and sequels in general) seem to be worse then the originals, this film is an exception. Honestly, I have never understood all the hype surrounding the first film - sure, the first was good, but it didn't have me jumping out of my seat and laughing at how scared I was as many times as I had hoped it would.
Paranormal Activity 3 is a haunted house thrill ride delight, and the film manages to still be outstanding without using the creepy, cheesy background music that most horror films are plagued with. With exceptional acting, and tons of thrills and jolts, the film is undeniably the best in the series, and some would even go as far as to say that it's the best horror film of the year.
However, we are dissapointed that the film did not include several of the scenes that appeared in the trailer in the film. This includes pretty much the entire first 40 seconds of the original trailer. What was really dissapointing - the Bloody Mary scene between the 2 girls in the trailer that made up about half of the trailer for the 3rd film didn't even appear in the film. So really, about 5 seconds of the footage from the trailer actually appeared in the film.
RATING:
Acting: 8/10
Plot: 7/10
Overall rating: 7/10
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Justin Bieber: Baby Daddy?
17-year old Canadian singer/songwriter Justin Bieber is currently facing a Paternity lawsuit from 20-year-old Mariah Yeater. Yeater and her lawyers, Lance Rogers and Matthew Pare claim that Bieber had some sort of sexual contact with Yeater last October when Bieber performed at the Staples Center. Yeater is apparently not seeking the spotlight or an unreasonable amount of money; all she would like is a modest sum for child support.
While Yeater is suing Bieber, it appears that if the claims are true (which they're obviously not), Yeater could also face charges of statutory rape, because Yeater would have been 19 and Bieber would have been 16, last October during the "incident".
Bieber's party claims they have not seen the lawsuit, however is "sad" that Yeater would fabricate such "malicious, defamatory, and demonstrably false claims."
Bieber, himself took to Twitter to address the issues, tweeting to his 13 million twitter followers saying, "All the rumors...the gossip...Im [Sic] gonna focus on the positives...the music."
And of course, millions of Bieber fans have taken to Twitter to address their irrelevant thoughts on the claims, with one fan tweeting "Roses are red, violets are blue mariah yeater we are gunna kill you. [Sic]"
What do you think about the claims? You'd be surprised by how many people think they're true, but what's your opinion?
While Yeater is suing Bieber, it appears that if the claims are true (which they're obviously not), Yeater could also face charges of statutory rape, because Yeater would have been 19 and Bieber would have been 16, last October during the "incident".
Bieber's party claims they have not seen the lawsuit, however is "sad" that Yeater would fabricate such "malicious, defamatory, and demonstrably false claims."
Bieber, himself took to Twitter to address the issues, tweeting to his 13 million twitter followers saying, "All the rumors...the gossip...Im [Sic] gonna focus on the positives...the music."
And of course, millions of Bieber fans have taken to Twitter to address their irrelevant thoughts on the claims, with one fan tweeting "Roses are red, violets are blue mariah yeater we are gunna kill you. [Sic]"
What do you think about the claims? You'd be surprised by how many people think they're true, but what's your opinion?
Friday, October 28, 2011
"Not Like The Movies" Review
Today, we are doing a completely random review of Katy Perry's song, Not Like The Movies because we can, and that's all you need to know.
The number one reason (and really the only reason) that we're reviewing this at such a strange date (1 year after the song's initial release) is because we weren't operating back in 2010 at the song's release and were therefore obviously unable to review it.
The second reason is because it's 1:00 in the morning and we're tired.
There's a cute little story behind the writing of the song, about how Katy started writing the song after her debut tour in 2009, promoting One of the Boys. Katy considers the song to be a "2-part song" as she set the song aside for a while, and was finally able to finish it once she began dating her then-boyfriend, now-husband Russell Brand. Katy said it's a very special song for her because she expressed a lot in the track, a lot of things that she needed to let out.
While Katy is likely known for her upbeat, party pop songs like California Gurls and Teenage Dream, this song is one of her slower, ballad songs where she discusses some great topics and reaches some great notes in the lyrics and words.
Probably one of Katy's best songs, we give this song a rating of 9.7/10, and not just because it's one of the cutest songs we've ever heard. Seriously, this song is epic, it's a little similar to The One That Got Away.
The number one reason (and really the only reason) that we're reviewing this at such a strange date (1 year after the song's initial release) is because we weren't operating back in 2010 at the song's release and were therefore obviously unable to review it.
There's a cute little story behind the writing of the song, about how Katy started writing the song after her debut tour in 2009, promoting One of the Boys. Katy considers the song to be a "2-part song" as she set the song aside for a while, and was finally able to finish it once she began dating her then-boyfriend, now-husband Russell Brand. Katy said it's a very special song for her because she expressed a lot in the track, a lot of things that she needed to let out.
While Katy is likely known for her upbeat, party pop songs like California Gurls and Teenage Dream, this song is one of her slower, ballad songs where she discusses some great topics and reaches some great notes in the lyrics and words.
Probably one of Katy's best songs, we give this song a rating of 9.7/10, and not just because it's one of the cutest songs we've ever heard. Seriously, this song is epic, it's a little similar to The One That Got Away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)