Funny/Strange News Stories

The great chicken uprising is occurring.


Ca-kV-YWcAEkAC1.png
 
Last edited:

Season 11 Hbo GIF by Curb Your Enthusiasm
Motherboard
Luckey wrote that he wants to keep tinkering. “I have plans for an anti-tamper mechanism that, like the NerveGear, will make it impossible to remove or destroy the headset,” he said. “Even so, there are a huge variety of failures that could occur and kill the user at the wrong time. This is why I have not worked up the balls to actually use it myself.”
:eek: Username most definitely doesn't check out (except perhaps in the colloquial sense of "checking out").
 
Last edited:
My current favourite Utah saga is the "Utah Cookie Wars," and it's actually pretty ugly too.

That really takes the biscuit.

In trying to "stifl" their competition I hope Crumbl haven't bitten off more than they can chew.

The other articles only mention Dirty Dough. If they and their competitor have sewn up the Utah market I guess Crave have been left to pick up the crumbs. It seems like neither of them are girl scouts, etc etc.
 
Last edited:
Ruff justice?
"The Old No. 2" :lol: Case dismissed.

This has to be one of the craziest coincidences ever, though.

I always watch Pointless when I get home from work (on iPlayer) and one of the contestants tonight told the hosts that he has a 'cockapoo', to which I joked (to myself) "You can't say that in Qatar...", and came up with an alternative name for a cockapoo, which was the PooDaniel...
 
Last edited:
"The Old No. 2" :lol: Case dismissed.
"43% poo... 100% smelly". I'm not a lawyer but I wonder whether someone who seems well versed in U.S. law (@TexRex maybe?) could tell me whether the Daniel's lawyer has a case when he says that a parody product like this could put children at risk by opening the door to marijuana gummies legally packaged as popular candy brands, or he's barking up the wrong tree.
 
Last edited:
someone who seems well versed in U.S. law (@TexRex maybe?)
What are you implying? Oh, right.

As for cannabis gummies, in my role as a moderator at GTPlanet I get to know at least 8 more people every day who can help with the marketing side of this idea.
 
Last edited:
"43% poo... 100% smelly". I'm not a lawyer but I wonder whether someone who seems well versed in U.S. law (@TexRex maybe?) could tell me whether the Daniel's lawyer has a case when he says that a parody product like this could put children at risk by opening the door to marijuana gummies legally packaged as popular candy brands, or he's barking up the wrong tree.
It's...odd. I haven't read the argument, let alone the hypothetical offered within it, but it looks like SCOTUS held unanimously (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc. (1994)) that transformative use of copyrighted works for the purpose of parody constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act of 1976. While the toy definitely looks like the product which it's meant to parody, most of the details have been changed. The hypothetical seems like exactly that and isn't particularly relevant but as a reference to a slippery slope, implicating a subjective "bad" (as cannabis gummies) which itself has nothing to do with their specific claims.

Free speech concerns are ever-present, even when the law implicated is regarding matters of copyright. I honestly don't know that there's a legitimate harm here to be remedied, but it's hard to know how this particular Court is going to come down on it. It's worth noting that the only justice who sat on Campbell that's presently on the Court is Thomas.
 
Thanks. It sounded like a slippery slope to me. Possibly even more slippery than the ones found in canine parks on a rainy day. As far as direct harm is concerned it's not like your pet would go for your prized bottle of sippin' whiskey due to its resemblance to his or her favourite chew toy. But I guess JD's attorney had to try and justify their case without looking making them look like a big dog trying to gobble up a little puppy.
 
Last edited:
It's...odd. I haven't read the argument, let alone the hypothetical offered within it, but it looks like SCOTUS held unanimously (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc. (1994)) that transformative use of copyrighted works for the purpose of parody constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act of 1976. While the toy definitely looks like the product which it's meant to parody, most of the details have been changed. The hypothetical seems like exactly that and isn't particularly relevant but as a reference to a slippery slope, implicating a subjective "bad" (as cannabis gummies) which itself has nothing to do with their specific claims.

Free speech concerns are ever-present, even when the law implicated is regarding matters of copyright. I honestly don't know that there's a legitimate harm here to be remedied, but it's hard to know how this particular Court is going to come down on it. It's worth noting that the only justice who sat on Campbell that's presently on the Court is Thomas.

It's always a weird day when dog chew toys, a dry county in Tennessee, and 2 Live Crew wind up in the same conversation.

(Jack Daniels is actually distilled and bottled in a dry county...meaning there's no tasting room and you can't just go in and pick up a bottle of Jack at a reduced cost, even if you actually wanted a bottle of Jack.)
 
Last edited:
Back