|
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Light LollipopsName: Finger Lites
Here it is, the neatest thing to hit candy since citric acid. That’s right, the ultra-cheap LED technology is now being applied to candy. Malibu Toys has created a whole line of light up candies, with the Finger Lites as the center of the line. They have other products, like clip ons and necklaces, but they’re based around the same center of a battery hooked up to an LED. Personally, of all the formats I prefer the ring, since I really don’t want a slobbery piece of hard candy hanging around my neck and getting lint stuck to it. The ring comes sealed in a little plastic pouch. To activate the light, you pull out a little paper tab that allows the battery to make contact with the wiring for the LED. Then it starts flashing. And flashing. The package says it will stay lit for at least two hours. Mine is still flashing and it’s been a week since I pulled the tab and ate the lolly. I picked an orange one, though they come in a large variety of colors/flavors and have themed shapes for different holidays (Easter means bunnies and duckies, Halloween means vampires and pumpkins). The orange one was a little bland, not terribly tart or flavorful, but then again, it’s a novelty. Would I buy this again? Hell yes, I’m planning my next party around them. I think the cool thing to do is probably figure a way to hang up the eaten ones on a string or something (maybe I’ll do it for a Christmas party and hang them on the tree). Some convenience stores are refusing to carry Finger Lites because they think that kids will chew up the LED/Battery. I’m one of those people who can’t help but chew up my hard candy and had no trouble telling the difference between the candy and the hard plastic housing for the light. In fact, I don’t think I could break it with my teeth if I tried. I’m wondering if those convenience store people tried them. I know, I know, it’s not a terribly eco-friendly product either. Forgive me, I usually make good choices when it comes to that stuff, but I couldn’t help myself. This candy gets points mostly for novelty, not taste, but it’s still a winner in my book. Rating - 8 out of 10 POSTED BY Cybele AT 9:56 am
|
||||
ABOUT
FEEDSCONTACT
EMAIL DIGESTCANDY RATINGSTYPE
BRAND
COUNTRY
ARCHIVES
|
Meticulously photographed and documented reviews of candy from around the world. And the occasional other sweet adventures. Open your mouth, expand your mind.
  SEARCHSearch the Candy Blog archives
    
FEATURED NEWS ITEMS
COPYRIGHT NOTICEAll content (text and photos unless otherwise credited) is copyright 2005-2024 by Cybele May Please do not use my photos without prior permission directly from me, they represent what I ate in preparation for these reviews and are not to be used for other purposes. Design by Hop Studios
|
|||
SUPERB
YUMMY 
TASTY 
WORTH IT 
TEMPTING 
PLEASANT 
BENIGN 
UNAPPEALING 
APPALLING 
INEDIBLE 
-
Comment by
crispin on 12/31/69 at 4:00 pm #
-
Comment by
russ on 12/31/69 at 4:00 pm #
-
Comment by
Anonymous on 12/31/69 at 4:00 pm #
-
Comment by
Cybele on 12/31/69 at 4:00 pm #
-
Comment by
Bryan on 12/31/69 at 4:00 pm #
-
Comment by
Cybele on 12/31/69 at 4:00 pm #
-
Comment by
Bryan on 12/31/69 at 4:00 pm #
-
Comment by
Cybele on 12/31/69 at 4:00 pm #
-
Comment by
EMILIE on 4/02/12 at 6:38 pm #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.send me some…the kids would love them. I am confident they know the difference between candy and plastic. I didn’t say they wouldn’t eat the plastic but their palate is mature enough to know the difference.
Maybe it’s not eating the battery that scares the vendors, it’s someone poking his or her eye out with a pointy star.
What motivated you to burn your blog’s name into your photos?
anon - some folks have been reposting my photos on their site. I really don’t have a problem with that, but a link back would be nice as acknowledgement of where it came from (and using my bandwidth really isn’t cool either).
Do you think it’s a bad idea? Should it be more subtle? I’m open for comments about it.
lighted candy is pretty cool, but yeah I’d be a bit concerned about giving it to a little kid…
by the way, if you are concerned about the bandwidth and you have control over your .htaccess file you can try stop people from hotlinking your images that way. Search on google for it, I think it uses modrewrite. But they can still physically grab the photos and host it on their own, so it won’t stop those peoples.
Thanks for the tip Brian ...I’m planning on moving blog software rather shortly (probably to expression engine so I can do categories) and will probably insert some code at that point.
I was curious though if the .htaccess will have any affect on folks who read via feeds (like I do on bloglines.com). I really don’t want to interfere with that.
Does the url on the photo bother you? (Or anyone else reading here?) Should I make it more subtle?
Hm… that’s an interesting question with Bloglines and the other online readers… I don’t have any blocking set on my blog so I don’t know if it will come through the feed. Maybe I spoke too soon! =)
The URL doesn’t bother me at all. I don’t see why you shouldn’t be allowed to put it on, especially since your photos are pretty nice and it looks like they take you time. And I think the font and stuff looks nice…
I appreciate your comments about the photo branding, Bryan.
Maybe I’ll do some experimenting with one of my other unread blogs to see about the htaccess stuff.
i dont think that you putting the blog name on your pictures is at all a bad thing, some people have even watermarked across the whole picture to make it so people cant steal it as their own. you should be able to disable right click on your website too. the company i work for has right click disabled so people cant steal pictures of our products because we pay for our pictures. so dont take it off or remove it, maybe make it even bigger so that if someone were to try to remove it then it would be obvious
Next entry: Madelaine Poker Chips and Playing Card Chocolates
Previous entry: Ginger Bears