Wak Oentoenk

Long Hair Trends Spring / Summer 2012
For spring-summer 2012 hairstyles with hair dropped are very modern. Hairdressers of the leading brands all showed variations during the reviews for the new season - elegant soft waves, natural hair in casual long style beach hair with streaks of chips, wet hair, shiny hair with high forehead, big curls and hair on one side, casual hairstyles with time in the middle, etc. etc.
Long Hair Trends Spring / Summer 2012


Consider what are the trends for long hair dropped:

Trend # 1 - Natural VisionSimple ideas for everyday hairstyles Most brands showed hair with natural vision in presenting their collections for next season.
When Giles and Givenchy hair looks very natural - long, brittle and slightly ruffled:
Burberry and Chloe show wavy hair combed the way through the middle, slightly split ends in hair urban style, perfect for stylish girls:

In Theyksen long hair is in layers and strands stand on pegs. At the top we find the time in the middle. Isabel Marant shows the beach with hair disheveled locks, good idea for holidays or for ladies who love casual-elegant style:

Trend # 2 - wavy stylesgood ideas for evening hair styles with dropped At Versace and D & G hair is gorgeous, airy and very bulky. We see the typical wavy hairstyles with volume that looks so sexy:

How to make a similar hairstyle with volume can be seen in this thread.
Betsey Johnson is a good idea for evening hair style "Barbie" - with curls and big hair to one side. Anna Sui showed shiny hair style "Hollywood" with soft waves: Trend # 3 - Road through the middleThis trend had last season and for spring-summer 2012 is presented more extensively in recent collections. If you have never worn her hair in the middle of the road, do it this season. Scary is modern, and what easier to change from this: /img> Trend # 4 - Road to one sideAlthough less time styling with a country's present in the collections for spring-summer 2012, here are some ideas:
When Celine hair straight and shiny, brushed to one side. Ellie Saab showed wavy styles with sleek upper hair combed to one side of the road:
Betsey Johnson presented attractive hairstyle with large curls on one side, and at J Mendel turned off hair passes through the person:
Hairstyles with long hair turned to one side Trend # 5 - sleek hair shiny effectWith the help of hair styling products is sleek and turned completely backwards. Similar styles shown: Felder Felder, Giambattista Valli, BCBG - Max Azria and others:

Trend # 6 - Wet Hair Some brands to launch new season styles with "wet look". The hair is drawn, combed through the middle of the road or off, and in some cases tied in a ponytail or bun harvested.

The next issue will look at more styles with wet hair from the new collections. We end today a selection of ideas for long hair with modern hair colors that we saw in the reviews for Spring-Summer 2012
Hair Color Generally dominated by bright hair, which is normal to the trend of warmer months. If you decide to refresh your hair color or you want change, see what designers show:
Blondes Blonde this season is presented in a complete range - from light ash blonde and platinum, in rich golden blond to dark blond with auburn shades:
Brunette For spring-summer 2012 is black with soft hues. Black hair are red, purple or brown shades.
Black Hair Trends Spring / Summer 2012
Hazel Brown for the new season in a very wide range. The prevailing warm tones and bright colors - maroon with red or rusolyavi shades.

In conclusion, we can add that hairstyles for long hair are really sexy and with a hair dropped very feminine. It is also made easy with most of them we can do yourself. Ideal as a casual employee hairstyles for girls are having great evening hairstyles for romantic ladies.
I hope the selection of nice hair are usefull for you and give you good ideas with which to diversify its vision for the new season.

Today's New York Times declares that there an investment "bubble" in Silicon Valley being concealed by venture capitalists, and that it's so out of control that startups are being told not to generate revenue for fear of disrupting their fantasy valuations (link).

I think the article is about 1/3 correct and 2/3 nuts.  Yes, some startup valuations do seem amazingly high.  No, there isn't some grand conspiracy, and there isn't necessarily a bubble. 

This is an important issue for the mobile tech world because mobile startups are a huge part of the so-called bubble.  If you're working in a mobile startup, or thinking about doing one, you need to understand what's happening.  Here's my take:

I've spent more than a year pitching the startup I'm working in, Zekira, to VCs and angels in Silicon Valley.  I've met with scores of them, taken them to breakfast and coffee, and had long philosophical conversations with them about our company in particular and startups in general.  I have friends and former co-workers who now work in the VC and angel world.  I've also spent a huge amount of time networking with other entrepreneurs, successful and otherwise, and the conversation always turns to the fund-raising process.  So while I don't claim to be the world's greatest expert on startup funding, I do have a pretty good ringside seat.  Here's my list of venture funding myths and realities as they relate to the Times article:


Myth 1.  Venture capitalists and angels are in the business of creating new technology products.  Not true, and in this respect the article is right.  Many people who work as VCs and angels are passionate about technology and love to be personally involved with new tech products.  They give great, enthusiastic advice.  But their business is to create companies they can sell.  Period.  They don't get paid until a company either gets acquired or goes public, so their focus is on creating companies that they can sell to someone for a markup.

There's nothing new about this.  Venture capital has always worked this way.


Myth 2.  We are in another tech bubble "worse" than 1999 (in the words of the article).  In the late 1990s, valuations of all tech companies, startups and otherwise, were wildly over-optimistic.  This situation made it easy for VCs to take new tech companies public at a much earlier stage, and at a higher value, than was possible previously.  As one VC explained to me at the time, "there's market demand for companies that are much less mature than those we launched in the past, so we're going to fulfill that demand."

Because the entire stock market was involved, and because immature companies were offered in IPOs, the retirement fund of every American was put at risk.  That's not the situation today.  The market valuations of existing tech companies are not wildly out of whack (a point made well here).  The startups being sold without revenue are almost all being peddled to other tech companies, not to the public.  Facebook and Google and some other big firms have decided that they need to buy consumer internet and mobile companies with rapidly growing audiences.  Competition between them has driven up the valuation of those companies.

Are the valuations inappropriate?  I don't know, but Facebook and Google and the rest are big and successful and presumably know what they're doing.  They can also afford to lose the money they're spending.  So even if there is a bubble, at this point I don't think is is even remotely the sort of economic threat it was in the late 1990s.

As for the VCs' role in this, they're just doing what they always do, fulfilling the demand for a particular type of company.


Myth 3.  Startups are being told not to make revenue because that will disrupt their valuations. 

Oh, please.

The reality is that there are at least two tracks of startup activity, which I will label trendy and traditional.  The trendy startups are web and mobile services hoping to be acquired by the big web players.  For those companies, the source of their valuation is the number of users they attract and the rate at which they grow.  Revenue is irrelevant because Facebook and friends aren't buying revenue, they are buying market position.

In a trendy startup, making revenue is a problem because it distracts you from the goal of growing the audience.  The VCs are right to tell companies to disregard it.

But the traditional startups are treated very differently.  In those companies, the VCs are looking for a strong team, good product, and proven revenue.  In fact, the problem is not that companies are being told not to make revenue, it's that even angels are often demanding that companies have a customer base and substantial revenue streams before they'll make an investment.  In other words, the investors don't act like the stereotype of early-stage people who fund a cool idea, they act more like banks.

From my perspective, it looks like most of the big VCs are investing in a mix of trendy and traditional startups.  Among the angels there seem to be different circles, some specializing in trendy startups and some specializing in traditional ones.  But the trendy startup scene gets almost all the public attention.  It's what drives the startup weblogs, it drives the big drinking parties, it brings people out to the conferences, and it generates most of the press coverage for spectacular acquisitions.

You often see news articles focus on the trendy startups as if they're the only thing happening in venture capital.  That's exactly what the Times article did.

The trendy startup scene is entertainment, spending a weekend in Vegas without the long drive across the desert.  Like gambling, the attraction of trendy startups is that you might get wildly rich for a small investment of money and time.  Also like gambling, you'll probably lose your shirt. 

Is that a bad thing?  Only if you bet money and time that you can't afford to lose.

The danger to the public (and to the economy as a whole) will be if and when trendy startups start to be offered up in IPOs.  If that happens, it will be very important for all of us, the New York Times included, to raise an alarm very loudly.  But that's not the situation we're in today.  Calling today's situation a bubble is crying wolf, because it may cause people not to pay attention when there really is a problem in the future.