Sean Murphy about Why Do I Care About Other's Religions? 23.05.08 In the face of everything
you've written how do you
define and prove unconditional
love? That seems to me to be
central [...]
vjack about Time to get a Tattoo? 21.05.08 I've thought about Dawkins'
scarlet A, but virtually no
non-atheists would even know
what it meant.
JTankers about The Large Hadron Collider 05.05.08 I very much enjoyed Brian's
very inspiring presentation.
I too would be inspired except
for one small detail that he
[...]
Kevin about I'm a Motivator! 05.05.08 This will be bigger than
goatse
Timothy Foreman about The Gumption Trap 03.05.08 That's a possibility. I was
also wondering if one of the
floats was bad. I'll look into
it this weekend.
From BoingBoing comes a research paper into the copyright issues surrounding the song "Happy Birthday To You".
I'll have to download this paper and read it later, but the abstract sure looks interesting:
"Happy Birthday to You" is the best-known and most frequently sung song in the world. Many - including Justice Breyer in his dissent in Eldred v. Ashcroft - have portrayed it as an unoriginal work that is hardly worthy of copyright protection, but nonetheless remains under copyright. Yet close historical scrutiny reveals both of those assumptions to be false. The song that became "Happy Birthday to You," originally written with different lyrics as "Good Morning to All," was the product of intense creative labor, undertaken with copyright protection in mind. However, it is almost certainly no longer under copyright, due to a lack of evidence about who wrote the words; defective copyright notice; and a failure to file a proper renewal application.
The falsity of the standard story about the song demonstrates the dangers of relying on anecdotes without thorough research and analysis. It also reveals collective action barriers to mounting challenges to copyright validity: the song generates an estimated $2 million per year, and yet no one has ever sought adjudication of the validity of its copyright. Finally, the true story of the song demonstrates that a long, unitary copyright term requires changes in copyright doctrine and administration. With such a term, copyright law needs a doctrine like adverse possession to clear title and protect expectations generated when, as with this song, putative owners do not challenge distribution of unauthorized copies for more than 20 years. And Copyright Office recordkeeping policy, which currently calls for discarding correspondence after 20 years and most registration denials and deposits after five years, must be improved to facilitate resolution of disputes involving older works.
Over two hundred unpublished documents found in six archives across the United States have been made available on a website that will serve as an online appendix to this article.
Festo's AirJelly is powered by some magical jelly fish properties, a lithium-ion battery, an electric motor and a bit of helium. If that's not floaty enough for you, there's also a water version, AquaJelly.
Here is a fun video of Johnny Valentino - the violin player from the Fabulous Poodles - in 1991:
Here are The Fabulous Poodles playing Mirror Star on Peter Cooks' show Revolver in 1978
(man, what awful video effects.
I ran across The Fabulous Poodles in the used record store Oarfolkjokeopus that was three blocks from my house in the late 70's. My friends and I would walk down there and buy stuff that looked interesting - and it was pretty cheap.
I found The Fabulous Poodles, Tuff Darts, Human Sexual Response (you have to love a band that plays a song named "Butt Fuck" on live TV), and many others. Now I have this need to borrow Kevin's USB record player and make some MP3s.
WASHINGTON, DC—According to a groundbreaking new study by the Department of Labor, working—the physical act of engaging in a productive job-related activity—may greatly increase the amount of work accomplished during the workday, especially when compared with the more common practices of wasting time and not working.
Damn there are some funny quotes in here:
"Fucking around is in fact detrimental to the work process," the study reads in part.
...
Typical workplace activities, such as shooting the shit, turn out to be less productive than not wasting time.
...
A similar study conducted at Harvard University over a period of three years attempted to determine conclusively whether working was more productive than various different subsets of not working. The results showed across the board that working is 100 percent more productive than listening to music and checking e-mails, 100 percent more productive than meandering around the office socializing with coworkers, 100 percent more productive than playing online Sudoku, 100 percent more productive than watching YouTube videos of nostalgic childhood television programming, 100 percent more productive than reading celebrity-gossip blogs while chatting with friends on Instant Messenger, 100 percent more productive than napping, and 98.2 percent more productive than not showing up to work.
Comments
23.05.08
In the face of everything you've written how do you define and prove unconditional love? That seems to me to be central [...]
21.05.08
I've thought about Dawkins' scarlet A, but virtually no non-atheists would even know what it meant.
05.05.08
I very much enjoyed Brian's very inspiring presentation. I too would be inspired except for one small detail that he [...]
05.05.08
This will be bigger than goatse
03.05.08
That's a possibility. I was also wondering if one of the floats was bad. I'll look into it this weekend.