Skip to main content

The must have accessory for iPhone owners

What does every iPhone owner need this time of year? No, not at iPhone cosy, or a dancing polar bear app, or an iPhone scraper to remove the ice from the screen of a morning. Something much more useful.

Picture the scene. I am taking the dog for a walk. The iPhone rings. I try to answer it - but it doesn't work. Another time, while out in London, I need to send a text. It doesn't work. Not because the gears inside have frozen up, but because the iPhone's touchscreen relies on something like a finger to get its screen working. Encase said finger in a glove and the capacitative effect is reduced - it doesn't work.

Yet the weather we have had recently really does require gloves.

Luckily, for Christmas (thanks Andy and Fiona) I have been given a pair of iPhone compatible gloves. No, really. With these gloves on the touch screen works just fine. So no more tossing up between frostbite and not communicating. Technology to the rescue!
Labels:

Comments

  1. Viktor S. Poór30 December 2010 at 14:01

    When I want to answer the phone without removing my gloves, I use my nose. It's not the most elegant way, but it works. ( have to admit, it's not perfect for texting)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg30 December 2010 at 14:55

    Nice one, Viktor. But things could get awfully messy if you had a cold.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unknown30 December 2010 at 23:52

    iPhone, SchmiPhone: there's a slapp for that!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian Clegg31 December 2010 at 18:06

    Have you been on the eggnog, Helen?

    ReplyDelete
  5. xtofersdad14 December 2011 at 09:09

    You obviously weren't given a pair of these gloves.

    http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=620

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more