In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

[ahammel]

Did you know that the first words on the Wikipedia page you linked to is "Glochids are hair-like spines"?

Imprecise terminology. The consensus is that glochids, unlike true spines, are not derived from leaves (Google scholar seems to back me up here). Glochids are, of course, spines in the sense of "pointy things".

I'm wondering, if you have several stuck in you, how much you care?

Depends on whether you're a botanist.

[Max™]

Depends on whether you're a botanist.

This is true for many things, surprisingly.


Gotta admit though, first time I read "glochids" I pictured the worm-let things from Tremors wearings kilts.

[ahammel]

This is true for many things, surprisingly.

Haha, damn page toppers. Fixed.

[Lostdreams]

With the vehicles crushed, police had no way to pursue Pion after he drove off in the tractor.

It's the perfect crime!

Don't tractors go, like, ten miles per hour?

It's still fast enough to outrun officers on foot.

[oxoiron]

I've been stuck behind tractors on the road that were going about 25mph.

EDIT:

Apparently I was wrong. According to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractor

A tractor has a top speed of 30 km/h.

From that same article:

Most older farm tractors use a manual transmission. They have several gear ratios, typically three to six, sometimes multiplied into two or three ranges. This arrangement provides a set of discrete ratios that, combined with the varying of the throttle, allow final-drive speeds from less than one up to about 25 miles per hour (40 km/h), with the lower speeds used for working the land and the highest speed used on the road.

So, it sounds like your memory has not failed you. Also, I can attest that I have spent way too many hours on a Case-O-Matic doing up to 26 mph on the shoulder of the road.

[LaserGuy]

The government of Singapore is apparently holding a National Night (of sex) on the holiday August 9, encouraging citizens to have sex in order to boost that nation's declining birthrate.

[edit]Fixed typo

[Angua]

Maybe they should cut the power for a week. I'm pretty sure I've seen some things were births spike after storms and power outages.

[Iulus Cofield]

Boredom, life's greatest aphrodisiac.

[pseudoidiot]

Speaking of sex.
http://gawker.com/5932695/trojan-using- ... ors-in-nyc

[CorruptUser]

The government of Singapore is apparently holding a National Night (of sex) on the holiday August 9, encouraging citizens to have sex in order to boost that nation's declining birthrate.

[edit]Fixed typo

Except for Rom-Coms, I'm quite sure married couples already get enough sex to procreate, if only they would stop the birth control. I know my parents did, obviously. So a holiday dedicated to sex (e.g., Valentine's Day) wouldn't do much.

Given the higher number of birthdays in late August and early September, I'd say Christmas would be a better holiday for promoting childbirth. Also, for those of you born in early September, enjoy that holiday now.

[ConMan]

Since a lot of Singapore's population is of Chinese descent, there's a certain amount of traditionalism in the culture that could mean that couples tend towards a "sex only for procreation" mindset, in which case a campaign like this may have some effect (except that it seems aimed at the younger generations who would eschew that kind of mindset anyway). The article is also a bit poorly worded in how it says that this "event" occurs on the eve of their existing National Day celebrations.

Of course, it can only do better than the alternative "Lee Kuan Yew wants you to have a baby - so think of him when you have sex tonight"*.

* I know that the current PM is actually his son, Lee Hsien Loong, but as founding PM of Singapore and alleged "power behind the throne" to this day, as well as being 88 years old, he's a much easier target.

[CorruptUser]

Since a lot of Singapore's population is of Chinese descent, there's a certain amount of traditionalism in the culture that could mean that couples tend towards a "sex only for procreation" mindset.

Can you name one (major) religion/philosophy that shuns marital sex for pleasure? Because that is definitely not the case in Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or any religion that I know of. Even Hyperchristians are allowed to have sex for fun, so long as no birth control is present.

[Max™]

Since a lot of Singapore's population is of Chinese descent, there's a certain amount of traditionalism in the culture that could mean that couples tend towards a "sex only for procreation" mindset.

Can you name one (major) religion/philosophy that shuns marital sex for pleasure? Because that is definitely not the case in Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or any religion that I know of. Even Hyperchristians are allowed to have sex for fun, so long as no birth control is present.

Before someone brings it up, no, the hole in a sheet thing is not true.

[Diadem]

Since a lot of Singapore's population is of Chinese descent, there's a certain amount of traditionalism in the culture that could mean that couples tend towards a "sex only for procreation" mindset.

Can you name one (major) religion/philosophy that shuns marital sex for pleasure? Because that is definitely not the case in Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or any religion that I know of. Even Hyperchristians are allowed to have sex for fun, so long as no birth control is present.

Before someone brings it up, no, the hole in a sheet thing is not true.

* Looks it up *

Not true you say? Shame, that sounds kinky!

[Max™]

Since a lot of Singapore's population is of Chinese descent, there's a certain amount of traditionalism in the culture that could mean that couples tend towards a "sex only for procreation" mindset.

Can you name one (major) religion/philosophy that shuns marital sex for pleasure? Because that is definitely not the case in Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or any religion that I know of. Even Hyperchristians are allowed to have sex for fun, so long as no birth control is present.

Before someone brings it up, no, the hole in a sheet thing is not true.

* Looks it up *

Not true you say? Shame, that sounds kinky!

Someone should merge it with magic underwear, I say.

[bigglesworth]

I'd imagine that a huge amount of tried and tested kink things actually started off as ideas that non-kinky people thought were punishments or just uncomfortable ideas.

[Nylonathatep]

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... -into-porn


Mom sues after breast-feeding video turned into porn

FAIR LAWN, N.J.—When MaryAnn Sahoury agreed to appear with her month-old daughter in a breast-feeding instructional video, she saw an opportunity to help women who had trouble getting their babies to nurse.

Instead, Sahoury found herself in a nightmarish situation: Someone took the footage of Sahoury nursing her daughter and spliced it with pornography posted on the Internet.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/09 ... andy-shop/

Smarter than the average burglar: ‘Very careful’ bear filmed breaking into candy shop

Surveillance video at the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory showed the bear prying open the door and grabbing some candy near the registers. He took the treats outside and ate them, then returned for more.

The bear made seven trips in about 15 minutes, finally leaving after a passing car apparently scared him away.

[Iulus Cofield]

Insane Clown Posse announces plans to sue the FBI

Presumably to get taken off various lists identifying Juggalos as gang members/terrorists.

[ahammel]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/09/walt-wawra/

An American tourist is visiting a park in Calgary. He is approached by two young men, who ask him in a "very aggresive" tone whether he has "been to the Stampede* yet". He gives them the brush off, then writes a nasty letter to the local newspaper lamenting the fact that he is not allowed to carry a concealed firearm in Canada and thanking "the Lord Jesus Christ that they did not pull a weapon of some sort".

Punchline:

The two young men in question were hired by a PR firm to give away free tickets to the Stampede.

Spoiler:

*Calgary's annual civic pride/animal cruelty festival.

[Max™]

Not like he was in any danger even if they weren't giving out tickets, if they did pull a weapon it wouldn't be a gun, and they're Canadians, they would have apologized, then given him a ride to the hospital.

[johnny_7713]

Not like he was in any danger even if they weren't giving out tickets, if they did pull a weapon it wouldn't be a gun, and they're Canadians, they would have apologized, then given him a ride to the hospital.

Not to mention the fact that nothing happened to him kind of proves he didn't need a gun. Scary thing is the guy is a cop. Remind me to never visit Kalamazoo, Mich.

[ahammel]

Not to mention the fact that nothing happened to him kind of proves he didn't need a gun. Scary thing is the guy is a cop. Remind me to never visit Kalamazoo, Mich.

To be fair: in Michingan "have you been to the stampede yet?" is slang for "we wouldn't want nobody to get hurt or nothin'".

[Mad Mike]

Not to mention the fact that nothing happened to him kind of proves he didn't need a gun. Scary thing is the guy is a cop. Remind me to never visit Kalamazoo, Mich.

To be fair: in Michingan "have you been to the stampede yet?" is slang for "we wouldn't want nobody to get hurt or nothin'".

In Detroit, any phrase could be slang for that.

And by the way, Kalamazoo is pretty nice in terms of crime. The only cities you really need to worry about are in and around the Detroit Metropolitan area.

[Zamfir]

"we wouldn't want nobody to get hurt or nothin'".

Well, I don't want anybody to get hurt either. Does that make me a bad person? Or is this also supposed to be slang for something else?

[Djehutynakht]

Pentagon makes cool new worm robot:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19200285

The Pentagon has made a wormlike robot, whose durability test apparently consisted of getting hit with a sledgehammer, for various reasons, such as reconnaisance.

You can't even trust the dirt these days...

[Dauric]

"we wouldn't want nobody to get hurt or nothin'".

Well, I don't want anybody to get hurt either. Does that make me a bad person? Or is this also supposed to be slang for something else?

The full version would go something like:

"That's a nice shop you've got there, be a shame if somethin' were to happen to your customers. Now we don't want nobody to get hurt or nothin, but if you don't pay us the money you owe us for 'protection' then we can't says what happens to anybody, capisce?"

[Chen]

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1240064--mom-sues-after-breast-feeding-video-turned-into-porn


Mom sues after breast-feeding video turned into porn

FAIR LAWN, N.J.—When MaryAnn Sahoury agreed to appear with her month-old daughter in a breast-feeding instructional video, she saw an opportunity to help women who had trouble getting their babies to nurse.

Instead, Sahoury found herself in a nightmarish situation: Someone took the footage of Sahoury nursing her daughter and spliced it with pornography posted on the Internet.

I had much more sympathy before I got to the following in the article:

Sahoury said she was asked to sign a piece of paper while she was leaving the shoot with the baby. She admits to not reading the document and said she believed it backed up the assertion that her full name would not be used.

Its still a dick move on the agency, but who the fuck signs something they haven't read without even knowing what it was? The article doesn't even say she was told it was something about her full name not being used just that she ASSUMED it was.

[Steax]

Given the circumstances, I think it was entirely the agency being a dick. You do not make the material before asking them to sign a contract. It's true that this person should have been more aware about legal requirements and standards and how to smell suspicious activity, but she was volunteering for the effort (which means she isn't necessarily used to how the process goes). The burden of acting professional and lawful falls on the agency.

[Diadem]

I had much more sympathy before I got to the following in the article:

Sahoury said she was asked to sign a piece of paper while she was leaving the shoot with the baby. She admits to not reading the document and said she believed it backed up the assertion that her full name would not be used.

Its still a dick move on the agency, but who the fuck signs something they haven't read without even knowing what it was?

Try: Everbody.

Are you seriously claiming you read, from beginning to end, every single contract you ever had to put a signature on? Because in that case I'm going to call you a liar.

No one reads everything they are asked to sign. It would be a full-time job. And even if they did read them, it would be a waste of time for 99.9% of all people, because they wouldn't understand the legalese.

There's a reason there are laws against tricking people into signing contracts. Or against putting unreasonable clauses into contracts.

[pseudoidiot]

Are you seriously claiming you read, from beginning to end, every single contract you ever had to put a signature on? Because in that case I'm going to call you a liar.

I can't say anything to whether Chen really does, but people like that absolutely exist. As long as I've known my wife she has never signed anything without reading it first (and that includes the ridiculous amount of papers we just signed to buy our house). I imagine most lawyers are the same way.

[Chen]

Given the circumstances, I think it was entirely the agency being a dick. You do not make the material before asking them to sign a contract. It's true that this person should have been more aware about legal requirements and standards and how to smell suspicious activity, but she was volunteering for the effort (which means she isn't necessarily used to how the process goes). The burden of acting professional and lawful falls on the agency.

Oh indeed and it'll likely hold up in court for that kind of reason. Really though, unless the article is just poorly written, it doesn't even imply the deceived her into signing it. It says she didn't read it and assumed it was something to do with not using her full name. Now if they TOLD her it had to do with that I would imagine that she would have said "they told me it was only about not using my full name so I signed it". Which is what lead me to the question of "who blindly signs something without reading it OR knowing at all what its about"

edit: I agree that most people will not read a full contract out. But as I stated above the article makes it look like she just guessed at what she was signing.

[AvatarIII]

hopefully this piece of news will go some way towards teaching people not to sign things blindly, if they ambushed her with the contract and she didn't have time to read it (entirely possible since it is stated she was asked to sign it as she was leaving) she could and should have asked them to give or mail it to her for her to read and sign in her own time.

[Dark567]

I had much more sympathy before I got to the following in the article:

Sahoury said she was asked to sign a piece of paper while she was leaving the shoot with the baby. She admits to not reading the document and said she believed it backed up the assertion that her full name would not be used.

Its still a dick move on the agency, but who the fuck signs something they haven't read without even knowing what it was?

Try: Everbody.

Are you seriously claiming you read, from beginning to end, every single contract you ever had to put a signature on? Because in that case I'm going to call you a liar.

No one reads everything they are asked to sign. It would be a full-time job. And even if they did read them, it would be a waste of time for 99.9% of all people, because they wouldn't understand the legalese.

There's a reason there are laws against tricking people into signing contracts. Or against putting unreasonable clauses into contracts.

Pretty much anything I have physically signed(and not just had to click I "accept"), I have read cover to cover. I reread my apartment lease every year. I read all the prospectuses of funds I buy. I read all the work agreements(including the employee handbook and healthcare plan info). Its really not as much as you think. Its definitely possible, with the exception of software licenses and TOS.

[Steax]

It's important to note the context here: she was done with the shoot before they asked her to sign it. Aside from that being totally wrong (it's like handing someone a piece of food and demanding they pay afterwards), she was basically in little position to argue about it if she wanted to (without starting a legalese battle; she'd have to call in a lawyer or something) and it caught her unaware (there's a very real difference in people's moods before they start working, and afterwards - it's why these trickses tend to work well). It's not like reading a list of terms before you purchase a service or something. It was a "thanks, btw, sign this, please, and you can go" situation. This is why I blame the agency.

Given the circumstances, I think it was entirely the agency being a dick. You do not make the material before asking them to sign a contract. It's true that this person should have been more aware about legal requirements and standards and how to smell suspicious activity, but she was volunteering for the effort (which means she isn't necessarily used to how the process goes). The burden of acting professional and lawful falls on the agency.

Oh indeed and it'll likely hold up in court for that kind of reason. Really though, unless the article is just poorly written, it doesn't even imply the deceived her into signing it. It says she didn't read it and assumed it was something to do with not using her full name. Now if they TOLD her it had to do with that I would imagine that she would have said "they told me it was only about not using my full name so I signed it". Which is what lead me to the question of "who blindly signs something without reading it OR knowing at all what its about"

edit: I agree that most people will not read a full contract out. But as I stated above the article makes it look like she just guessed at what she was signing.

Yeah, I see that. Well, articles exist to be sensational, and... yeah. I do think it was poorly written.

[Dauric]

It's important to note that "reading" a contract in it's entirety is different from "understanding" a contract in it's entirety. Not everyone can parse legalese, it's not like it's a requirement of elementary education. Also not every contract is written to be clearly understood, it's a sleazy practice but it's legal in all but a few specified industries (such as the Credit Card Industry*) that had made such heavy use of the technique that Congress had to intervene.

*Yes I reference Frontline a lot. This episode is from 2004 so it's dated and doesn't reflect recent legislation, but it does reflect the practice of obfuscating the contract details.

[Dark567]

It's important to note that "reading" a contract in it's entirety is different from "understanding" a contract in it's entirety. Not everyone can parse legalese, it's not like it's a requirement of elementary education. Also not every contract is written to be clearly understood, it's a sleazy practice but it's legal in all but a few specified industries (such as the Credit Card Industry*) that had made such heavy use of the technique that Congress had to intervene.

Actually, admittedly, I screwed up and didn't parse the details right of a credit card contract once and got screwed by some stupid fees. Only cost me $5 so not a big deal, but it was clearly obfuscated(and I'm generally pretty good at deobfuscation of legalese, having had to deal with it at a previous job). But the company also ended up losing a lawsuit over that specific clause and I got a refund.

[Steax]

The article also notes that she was verbally told that her full name would not be used. If this actually happened, and there are witnesses to back it up, the agency is probably liable, even if the contract said otherwise.

Even personally, if I'm told by a sales rep about a specific piece of detail like that, I'd usually forgive the contract's boilerplate text about "we reserve the right to do store your data, display your name blablabla" under the assumption that the previous statement was an exception. Of course, I'd keep a backup of that statement and request the sales guy to make sure of that before I signed the contract, but it's fairly common to assume that promises made are to be kept.

[CorruptUser]

Personally, I think that a contract that a reasonable person would not have read, fails the 'meeting of the minds' test regardless of what is in the contract, thus should not be a real contract.

Interest rates that can change arbitrarily are unconscionably, and thus should not be a real contract.

Giving up your constitutional right to a trial by Jury (yes it's in the goddamn constitution) should not be legal; if you want to go to arbitration when there is a tort, fine, but you can't agree to it beforehand.

[emceng]

I'm wondering - what was that dog thinking? That doesn't look like a quick walk by fight. He'd need to really go after it for a while to get that stuck. After getting impaled a few times, most things would leave it alone.

[bentheimmigrant]

psssst. New page.