Tumblr Weeds

Playing Doom on the airplane. Super sluggish, though I...

Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:06:35 -0500

Playing Doom on the airplane. Super sluggish, though I didn’t mind since idkfa/iddqd still works :-)

azspot: Jesus Christ! and a cast of dozens — Prop 8: The Musical

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:28:24 -0500

azspot:

Jesus Christ! and a cast of dozens — Prop 8: The Musical

streeter: This is the funniest picture I have seen all year.

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:25:26 -0500

streeter:

This is the funniest picture I have seen all year.

Federal judge bars MGA from making, selling Bratz dolls

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:11:55 -0500

Federal judge bars MGA from making, selling Bratz dolls:

I’m not totally familiar with the case, but I won’t let that stop me from opining with an air of authority since this is the Internet.

This case has nothing to do with free market theory. It has to do with the designer stealing from their former employer. Mattel paid the designer to make stuff, which said designer then did. It’s Work For Hire which is owned completely by Mattel and nobody else.

Whether or not Mattel does something with that work is irrelevant. They’re now the victim of a theft.

Characterizing this as “using a copyright to prevent competition with its products” is similar to characterizing prosecution of a burglary as “using felony statutes to prevent the pursuit of happiness.” Sure, the burglar was going to be happy with the $10,000 in diamonds that he stole, but that’s missing the point. The burglar isn’t allowed to reap benefits ill-gotten gains, especially when it’s at the continuing expense of the wronged party.

Now let’s say the burglar stole $300 million in diamonds, making him REALLY successful in his pursuit of happiness. Does it make sense to suggest that the judge should impose some kind of a sharing program so that the burglar can at least stay a little bit happy? Srsly? No. It does not.

Does it matter, even a little bit, that the miser from whom the diamonds were stolen were locked up in a safe, never intended to be used or sold or even looked at ever again? Nope. Not one bit. The diamonds have to go back.

That’s my uneducated and uninformed opinion on the issue. I’d love to know what other facts in the case render my hogwash above moot or incorrect… anyone?

squashed:

If you’ve followed this case, you know that the designer of the Bratz dolls did a bad thing. (And I’m not talking about designing the dolls.) The designer apparently came up with the dolls while working for Mattel, which makes Barbie, left Mattell with the designs, and started a competing line of dolls.

This is a slightly atypical copyright violation case. MGA, the maker of the Bratz dolls, is using a design that Mattel had a copyright on. However, Mattel would not have used that design because it would compete with Barbie. Mattel is using a copyright to prevent competition with its products.

Now, in a properly functioning free market, Mattel and MGA would sit down and Mattel would license or sell the copyright to MGA. Unfortunately, the brand name is so important here that there isn’t a lot of competition. Mattel would rather have a monopoly than license the designs.

This would be a good place for a court-designed mandatory license. MGA may have improperly started the line—but most of the value of the design has been added by MGA. MGA built and owns the trademark. But the doll design is inextricable from the rest of the line. Unfortunately, the copyright act is not structured to accomodate a judicially crafted mandatory license.

I am printing a batch of these to give out. Can’t wait...

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:58:31 -0500

I am printing a batch of these to give out.

Can’t wait to drop in the “win a free lunch” bowl at finer dining institutions all over town.

mikehudack:

artistspaid:

Evan Roth

WATCH OUT FOR IKE!!!! rach: TINA TURNER IS MY HERO. [via]

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:55:25 -0500

WATCH OUT FOR IKE!!!!

rach:

TINA TURNER IS MY HERO. [via]

If you can get past the subject matter, it’s fascinating...

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:30:59 -0500

If you can get past the subject matter, it’s fascinating to contemplate all the different messages durex was able to convey with this photo. I feel they over did it with the text in the lower left, hitting me over the head instead of letting me feel clever for figuring it out.

(d-min:justine-rmd:cache.jezebel.com)

And Carrie… this is for you...

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:02:54 -0500

And Carrie… this is for you :-)

soupsoup:

ohryan:

Sex-Panther.com

(via: dazzlingdelta: fatmanatee)

Made with real bits of panther.

Darwinism livejamie: Lunch

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:01:57 -0500

Darwinism

livejamie:

Lunch

Check out this oddly labeled model of a contemporary martini...

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:52:19 -0500

Check out this oddly labeled model of a contemporary martini glass. I suppose with enough use of the martini glass, the diagram seems coherent.

(Thanks to dalasverdugo, via yacht)

HAHAHA!!! My favorite part is jukebox with the wavvy arms near...

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:49:14 -0500

HAHAHA!!! My favorite part is jukebox with the wavvy arms near the end. You totally ‘rolled me there.

voodoopuff:

HA! Marc, this one is for you ;)

Thanks for keepin it realz Carrie! (via voodoopuff)

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:46:53 -0500

Thanks for keepin it realz Carrie! (via voodoopuff)

FlyClear

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:29:41 -0500

FlyClear: Ever since I received my flyclear card, airport security sucks FAR less when leaving JFK. Life will be really great when the get into LAX too.

Be back soon!

Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:23:05 -0500

Be back soon!

My folks help us celebrate our 3 year anniversary in...

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:27:06 -0500

My folks help us celebrate our 3 year anniversary in style!

goldshan:

One day early, but still exciting! Yay for tomorrow ;-)

Is Pownce the Zune of tumbling?

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:33:13 -0500

(I’m a Tumblr bigot. I’m biased. I am NOT objective.)

Srsly? I just want to check out the Calacanis link below, but get hit with a login screen, complete with ugly brown header. So as I was writing this snark, I thought… well… just do the darn process so that I can see the darn link.

Registered.

And… nothing. Taken to a page to post something of my own. Fail. You know that I’m specifically there for a specific URL… why not take me there?

It’s… Zune-ish?

And the Calacanis link had less content than the quoted text below, so don’t bother if you don’t already have an account (or even if you do).

soupsoup:

chartier:

Bruce Lee plays ping pong with nunchuck.

I agree with Jason Calacanis: this is unbelievable. Is it a spoof or something CG’d?

How to sell an iPhone app for $9.99 - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:49:19 -0500

How to sell an iPhone app for $9.99 - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW): Hey Marco! You’re at the top of the TUAW article list right now.

Comprehending the numbers.

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:19:08 -0500

It’s time for a new unit, the Cluster-Fudge-$ or CF$. CF$1 is == the cost of WWII. So in these units, we’re talking about lending CF$2.05 to rescue the financial system. This is on top of the CF$0.19 (or CF¢19) that’s being used to recapitalize the banks. According to the IMF, the 2007 world GDP was CF$18.02.

I encourage everyone (Economist, take note) to adopt the CF$ unit so that we can all better understand just WTF is going down here.

mikehudack:

“The U.S. government is prepared to lend more than $7.4 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers, or half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, to rescue the financial system since the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.”

—

Bloomberg.com

I officially give up trying to comprehend any numbers ending in ‘-illion.’ That way lies madness.

In 2007 dollars, World War II cost $3.6 trillion.

I’m not saying that Fed lending and FDIC guaranteeing loans and all those things I don’t really understand are the same as straight up spending, but how does one wrap one’s head around such a number?

(via southpol)

Cool! But I thought you were going to Egypt, not Las...

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:42:26 -0500

Cool! But I thought you were going to Egypt, not Las Vegas?

marc:

The amazing columns at Karnak Temple in Luxor. Stunning (and also a scene location from the film version of Agatha Christie’s Death on the Nile).

is it wrong to dislike someone because they are religious?

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:24:00 -0500

I’ll skip the right vs. wrong argument and give you a conclusion; it’s wrong and since you know enough to ask the question, I’ll give you credit for being able to imagine some arguments as to why that’s my conclusion.

Instead I’ll give you a benefit analysis:

If a person’s piety doesn’t cause you harm, then you’re probably doing yourself a disservice. You’ll end up surrounding yourself with people exactly like you, and since we tend to learn through conflict, disagreement, and situations with which we aren’t familiar, you’ll end up excluding yourself from countless intellectual & emotional learning experiences. You may find life is much easier with a homogenous surrounding, but I don’t think you’ll find it is better.

In short, I think you’re screwing yourself, but WTF do I know?

withinluwithoutlu:

I can say that regardless of whether I should or shouldn’t, I do dislike people if they’re religious.

I’m not trying to be offensive to anyone, I’m just stating the reality of my personality at this current juncture in time. I’m not sure if its valid or not to use piety as a basis for disliking people, so what do you tumblrers think?