Yeah, I have not done one of these since the start of the year. In the spirit of “better late than never”, “nothing beats a failure except a try”, and “try, try, try and try again”, I am giving it another go.
I am finally starting to conquer my health issues; the pain in my back is now almost completely gone, I have almost all the feeling back in my left leg, daily doses of bromelain are keeping my arthritis and carpal tunnel in check, my blood pressure is almost normal and, while still not perfect, I am sleeping much better. It is amazing how much more energy one has when not in pain all the time. It is time to try and get back to this weekly project.
Additionally, I am going to change the format a bit. All too often I am ending up with more than one link per topic per week. While I shall still reference stuff I posted during the week, I am also going to use it to clean up my saved RSS folder. In other words, you will be getting extras.
The categories are (click on the category to jump right to it):
Ludicrous – Funny, odd, strange, bizarre or humorous
We have all seen stupid warning signs and labels before. This post is going narrow the dumb factor specifically to labels and signs that prevent Darwinism. That said a formal definition is in order but before that a few disclaimers.
First off, if you are easily offended by sarcasm, you may wish to stop reading now. Secondly, links will be provided to actual signs when possible, however, these links may cease to function shortly after the post date. These type of images on the web have a tendency to vanish. Finally, please keep in mind that this a satirical, humorous post… not to be taken too seriously. I do not actually endorse removing stupid people from the gene pool.
Definition of Darwinism
1: a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors.
2: a theory that inherent dynamic forces allow only the fittest persons or organizations to prosper in a competitive environment or situation.
In layman’s terms, it is often termed “survival of the fittest”. In the context of this post, definition 2 is more relevant. Mainly the focus is that our society is so protective that we let too many survive. This post is themed “stupid people shouldn’t breed” or “death to the dumbest”.
How I missed this podcast eludes me. QuackCast, as described by the podcast’s website is “A podcast review of Quacks, Frauds and Charlatans. Oops. Thats not right. That should be Supplements, Complementary and Alternative Medicine i.e. SCAM.”.
Like What the Heck? What Happened to Common Sense?
I am reading an article about another law suite at Techdirt. This time, over Abbott and Costello’s famous skit “Who’s On First ?“. It was put in as a bit in play, Hand of God. The right owners are not happy with that and won’t stand for it. Just in case you haven’t heard of it. Here it is.
Who’s On First
In my humble opinion, it is a funny skit. I even recall a few local talents “covering” it. While some think covering a work is theft, I side with John Lennon. In a letter responding to the Fab Four “ripping off” black musicians:
Money’, ‘Twist ‘n’ Shout’, ‘You really got a hold on me’ etc, were all numbers we (the Beatles) used to sing in the dancehalls around Britain, mainly Liverpool. It was only natural that we tried to do it as near to the record as we could – i always wished we could have done them even closer to the original. We didn’t sing our own songs in the early days – they weren’t good enough – the one thing we always did was to make it known that these were black originals, we loved the music and wanted to spread it in any way we could. in the ’50s there were few people listening to blues – R + B – rock and roll, in America as well as Britain. People like – Eric Burdons Animals – Micks Stones – and us drank ate and slept the music, and also recorded it, many kids were turned on to black music by us.
When I thought to blog this, I was going to use the cover I mentioned, not the original. Since the suit is over the skit being used in a play, performed by a sock puppet, I had second thoughts. I would hate to tempt the legal vultures another target. They seem willing to go after anything remotely similar.Take care even asking “Who’s on First?” at a real ball game. I am also wondering why they didn’t go after
Take care even asking “Who’s on First?” at a real ball game. I am also wondering why they didn’t go after Eight is Enough when they titled an episode “Who’s On First ?”. Yeah, I know you can’t copyright a title but the episode did involve a stage, human, and the it is a comedy series… not a serious play with a sock puppet such as the one in question here.
The suit is dismissed but, I still have issues with it. For now, let us assume that the “right holders” are just not keen on love-ins. That, I would be okay with, not fine but, barely okay. After all, I would be a hypocrite if I did not respect their freedom of expression. Haters have a right to hate. People have a right to be greedy and selfish. Why is the case now tossed? In short, because it was deemed not cause any harm or loss to the copyright holders.
While I am pleased that the court recognizes that a sock puppet in a play is not going to rob cash from the Abbott and Costello heirs. It is what they make no statement about that has me irked. Clearly, common sense was not in the courtroom.
As Mike Masnick points out in his article:
Who actually wrote the skit, is questionable Back to Vaudeville days, jokes like this were often passed around and used by other acts as well. Most likely the work is public domain.
It was performed by on of the famous duo before they even teamed up. After they teamed up it became one of their signature skits. After that, its performance in certain movies was copyrighted, by Universal and not by the duo.
The rights transferred to the heirs were not for the skit in general, only for its performance in two movies and only for the skit specifically.
The case was dismissed, more or less, siding with the play.
Mike Masnick has more details on why the case lacks legal standing, but I am focusing on only the points above. Those regarding holding the rights and ownership. So, if the above are true:
If copyright is given to content creators how could the rights be given to Universal?
Bud Abbott reportedly stated that was taken from an old routine “Who’s The Boss ?&qout;. His wife recalls him performing it with another comedian before Costello. Who wrote the skit? (Wikipedia)
If this is a play, what about performance rights?
Why is this not a frivolous lawsuit… nevermind, I guess it is.
Like Mr. Masnick, I am at a loss as to why the court doesn’t rule on public domain status of the skit.
I think, if we knew the original creator of the skit, we should put the blame on that individual. Clearly, they forgot to add more lines;
“What about Sense, you know, Common Sense?”
“Oh, he left the team years ago”
“Yeah, when did he leave?”
“Right after Universal got a copyright on this ancient skit”
It seems that the hoverboards are the chic and en vogue way to “crash and burn”. If the exploding batteries don’t get you, your lack of balance may be all needed to lead you to your demise.
With that said, it might be well and good that the much more Marty McFly hoverboard in the video below is likely vaporware.
A Real Hoverboard?
The article I discovered this at states that due to many limitations, this particular device will likely end up as vaporware. However, it also mentions that Lexus has also created another impractical attempt. I still think it would be awesome if we could actually develope such a device. While it may be somewhat dangerous, it is the closest thing we would have to a flying carpet.