Weird News Stories

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

What the **** is a charcoal donut?

[Vaeliorin]

Man admonishes police for weighing his crack cocaine wrong

 

 

"While weighing the narcotics on a scale at the county jail, Ames yelled from the back of my patrol car that I was doing it wrong. Ames told me . . . that I needed to press the scale button to grams," a report states. "Ames told me that the reason he knew how to separate/weigh crack cocaine and pills is because that's what he does for a living."

 

Chalk up another one for Florida.

I think my favorite part of this article is the line "Career paths involving crack cocaine generally are frowned upon by law enforcement."

 

I can't imagine why they felt the need to add that line, and it makes me wonder about these crack cocaine involving career paths that aren't frowned upon by law enforcement.

[Walsingham]

"Insanity... is... doing the exact... same f***ing thing... over and over and over again... expecting... s*** to change. That... is... crazy."

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/dunkin-donuts-racist-thai-advert-blackface

 

I myself don't find them that offensive, but It's like the ad agencies who keep coming up with these blackface ads think people will stop complaining about them and laugh if they keep at them.

 

When I worked in Thailand I found Thai culture to be much more casually racist than anything I'd ever seen anywhere else. So the fact that one can look at that advert and not be offended over here means they had **** all chance of being offended. Never mind the fact that, you know, only a few countries used 'blackface' in the first place!

 

Personally I can see the guy's point.

 

said Nadim Salhani. "We're not allowed to use black to promote our doughnuts? I don't get it. What's the big fuss? What if the product was white and I painted someone white, would that be racist?"

 

[Raithe]

Hm,

Facebook is asking its users to give feedback on the new Terms and Conditions:

 

 

You give us permission to use your name, profile picture, content, and information in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. This means, for example, that you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you. If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it.

 

 

 

Also 

 

 

 

 

If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to the terms of this section (and the use of your name, profile picture, content, and information) [in advertising].

 

 

[Raithe]

Kiwi Parody of Blurred Lines Shut Down by Youtube

 

 

 

A feminist parody of Robin Thicke’s controversial ‘Blurred Lines’ film clip has been pulled from YouTube after being flagged for inappropriate content, while Thicke’s video remains on the site.

 

The video, called Defined Lines, was created by three University of Auckland law students and received over 300,000 views before being removed, TVNZ reports.

YouTube claimed the video violated its terms and conditions by displaying sexually explicit content.

 

The parody shows students Adelaide Dunn, Olivia Lubbock and Xoe Ellwood performing their own version of the song with young men dressed only in white underwear.

 

The lyrics include: “You if you want to get nasty, just don’t harass me. You can’t just grab me. It’s a sex crime. We don’t want it, it’s chauvinistic.”

They go on: “What you see on TV, doesn’t speak equality; it’s straight up misogyny.”

 

Ms Lubbock, a fifth year law student, said the clip was intended to be tongue in cheek by showing men being objectified by women.

 

"We had a lot of fun making it and like I said it was part of a comedy sketch so it was always intended to be taken as a bit of a joke," she said.

The filmmakers, who are reportedly “mystified” that their video has been removed, believe part of the negative reaction stems from the fact men are being portrayed as sex objects.

 

The video was created as part of the Law Revue, a collection of skits performed to 1500 people over three shows in Auckland last week.

It was made in response to the furore generated when Thicke’s song was released, with some saying ‘Blurred Lines’ promoted non-consensual sex and objectified women.

 

[NOK222]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408431/6-British-soldiers-charged-beating-duty-policeman-New-York-bar-brawl-racial-slur.html

 

6 Rugby playing British soldiers beat up an NYPD dumbass after he called them a racial slur (they were Fiji)

 

This brings a smile to my face. 

[Walsingham]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408431/6-British-soldiers-charged-beating-duty-policeman-New-York-bar-brawl-racial-slur.html

 

6 Rugby playing British soldiers beat up an NYPD dumbass after he called them a racial slur (they were Fiji)

 

This brings a smile to my face. 

 

*sudden dry0-heaving panic as I realise I am reading the Daily Mail website*

 

FFS, mate. Don't ****ing do that. It's not funny.

[NOK222]

I'm not versed in what brits think of their own news sources. My mistake. 

[Walsingham]

It's really dangerous. Like reading The Independent, it induces feelings of paranoia and moral outrage.

 

~

 

Man, for no discernible reason, throws a luggage trolley into the path of an oncoming train, then strolls casually away.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23929951

 

Note that the man concerned is in possession of one of those bloody wheeled bags. Clear indicator of sociopathic tendencies.

[Lexx]

"Well, why not."

 

Reminds me of these penny-on-the-rails stories.

[Walsingham]

"Well, why not."

 

Reminds me of these penny-on-the-rails stories.

 

Because at best he will have knocked out an entire platform while they have to get in people to extract the mangled trolley from the train, and declare everything operationally safe.

 

I honestly can't believe you think it's OK to just hoy steel trolleys into the path of oncoming trains.

[Humanoid]

Perhaps not that weird by today's standards, but a thread like this needs a man bites dog story for the sake of tradition.

[Lexx]

 

"Well, why not."Reminds me of these penny-on-the-rails stories.

 Because at best he will have knocked out an entire platform while they have to get in people to extract the mangled trolley from the train, and declare everything operationally safe. I honestly can't believe you think it's OK to just hoy steel trolleys into the path of oncoming trains.

I didn't said that I am ok with it. I am more lolwtf about it. Especially if you see how that dude behaves as if all is totally normal. In the end, the train could have jumped from the rails,and cause some huge ****, just because one dude thought "well, why not."

 

I'll guess my post was very unclear in that direction.

[Walsingham]

 

 

"Well, why not."Reminds me of these penny-on-the-rails stories.

 Because at best he will have knocked out an entire platform while they have to get in people to extract the mangled trolley from the train, and declare everything operationally safe. I honestly can't believe you think it's OK to just hoy steel trolleys into the path of oncoming trains.

I didn't said that I am ok with it. I am more lolwtf about it. Especially if you see how that dude behaves as if all is totally normal. In the end, the train could have jumped from the rails,and cause some huge ****, just because one dude thought "well, why not."

 

I'll guess my post was very unclear in that direction.

 

 

OK, I probably sounded more freaked out than I should have, for my part.

[Raithe]

Heh.   io9 - DC Won't Allow Batwoman's Gay Marriage to be Depicted.

 

 

 

J.H. Williams III and W. Haden Blackman have announced they'll be leaving as the editorial team on Batwoman, citing DC's editorial interference and in particular, the publisher's refusal to allow characters Kate Kane/Batwoman and her partner Gotham City police officer Maggie Sawyer marry each other.

 

That's right, while Batwoman has proposed to Maggie twice — twice on panel — DC not only refused to let the wedding be depicted on panel, but refused to let them be married at all. "[We] were told emphatically no marriage can result," said Williams on Twitter. He later added it was "was never put to us as being anti-gay marriage." Although how refusing to let people marry — even fictional characters — is not anti-gay marriage is beyond me.

 

Williams and Blackman will leave the series after issue #26 in December; given that Batwoman is one of DC's best titles — and arguably its best-looking comic period, thanks to Williams' incredible art and panel experimentation — it's a loss readers will feel keenly, even if DC doesn't.

 

On the other hand, maybe it doesn't matter if the creative team left, given the hassles DC was giving them. Here's a list from Williams' and Blackman's official statement, detailing the editorial interference:

 

Williams and Blackman say they're "heartbroken" to leave the title, and as a big Batwoman fan, I am too. Back in February, I posited that DC's refusal to publicize Kate's proposal to Maggie was an attempt to not give the press another reason to talk about noted homophobe Orson Scott Card's upcoming run on Adventures of Superman. I don't know if DC felt it worked, but given how happy DC was to promote Alan Scott's newfound homosexuality in the New 52 last year, I certainly found the lack of publicity significant.

 

Unfortunately, in recent months, DC has asked us to alter or completely discard many long-standing storylines in ways that we feel compromise the character and the series. We were told to ditch plans for Killer Croc’s origins; forced to drastically alter the original ending of our current arc, which would have defined Batwoman’s heroic future in bold new ways; and, most crushingly, prohibited from ever showing Kate and Maggie actually getting married. All of these editorial decisions came at the last minute, and always after a year or more of planning and plotting on our end.

 

We’ve always understood that, as much as we love the character, Batwoman ultimately belongs to DC. However, the eleventh-hour nature of these changes left us frustrated and angry — because they prevent us from telling the best stories we can. So, after a lot of soul-searching, we’ve decided to leave the book after Issue 26.

 

In the first draft of this article, I though DC was only refusing to allow the wedding to take place on panel, partially because I couldn't comprehend DC would not allow the character to get married. But as Williams' tweet above shows, I was wrong. This is completely insane, and it goes well beyond DC's refusal to publicize an in-universe, homosexual character's proposal to her partner.

 

Leaving aside why DC would piss off one of their best creative teams, I can't fathom why DC would think this was a good idea, or at least not realize what a horrendously bad idea it is. Perhaps they thought that by never bringing it up they could keep the controversial Card hire from getting back into the spotlight, but surely someone at the company realized that allowing the marriage to take place would be a lot less controversial than refusing to let the marriage take place. Did they really not think it would come out? Who are they trying to please with this decision, other than Orson Scott Card and his ilk? Are they really worried about Card's feelings more than the majority of their readership?

 

Originally, I asked if DC realized ignoring the problem isn't actually a solution, but instead another part of the problem. Let me amend that: DC clearly has a problem here. And the fact that they don't seem to even realize it has a problem is possibly the biggest problem of all.

 

 

[Hurlshort]

Sounds like a terrible business decision for DC comics, to be honest.  They've already got the gay couple in the comics.  The marketability of them getting hitched in the comic would be fantastic, it is a hot button issue right now and they'd get a ton of press for it.  Instead they are trying to avoid the issue, and will probably only end up with negative attention.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Possibly a new bug? 

 

 

Heh.   io9 - DC Won't Allow Batwoman's Gay Marriage to be Depicted.

 

 

J.H. Williams III and W. Haden Blackman have announced they'll be leaving as the editorial team on Batwoman, citing DC's editorial interference and in particular, the publisher's refusal to allow characters Kate Kane/Batwoman and her partner Gotham City police officer Maggie Sawyer marry each other.

 

That's right, while Batwoman has proposed to Maggie twice — twice on panel — DC not only refused to let the wedding be depicted on panel, but refused to let them be married at all. "[We] were told emphatically no marriage can result," said Williams on Twitter. He later added it was "was never put to us as being anti-gay marriage." Although how refusing to let people marry — even fictional characters — is not anti-gay marriage is beyond me.

 

Williams and Blackman will leave the series after issue #26 in December; given that Batwoman is one of DC's best titles — and arguably its best-looking comic period, thanks to Williams' incredible art and panel experimentation — it's a loss readers will feel keenly, even if DC doesn't.

 

On the other hand, maybe it doesn't matter if the creative team left, given the hassles DC was giving them. Here's a list from Williams' and Blackman's official statement, detailing the editorial interference:

 

Williams and Blackman say they're "heartbroken" to leave the title, and as a big Batwoman fan, I am too. Back in February, I posited that DC's refusal to publicize Kate's proposal to Maggie was an attempt to not give the press another reason to talk about noted homophobe Orson Scott Card's upcoming run on Adventures of Superman. I don't know if DC felt it worked, but given how happy DC was to promote Alan Scott's newfound homosexuality in the New 52 last year, I certainly found the lack of publicity significant.

 

Unfortunately, in recent months, DC has asked us to alter or completely discard many long-standing storylines in ways that we feel compromise the character and the series. We were told to ditch plans for Killer Croc’s origins; forced to drastically alter the original ending of our current arc, which would have defined Batwoman’s heroic future in bold new ways; and, most crushingly, prohibited from ever showing Kate and Maggie actually getting married. All of these editorial decisions came at the last minute, and always after a year or more of planning and plotting on our end.

 

We’ve always understood that, as much as we love the character, Batwoman ultimately belongs to DC. However, the eleventh-hour nature of these changes left us frustrated and angry — because they prevent us from telling the best stories we can. So, after a lot of soul-searching, we’ve decided to leave the book after Issue 26.

 

In the first draft of this article, I though DC was only refusing to allow the wedding to take place on panel, partially because I couldn't comprehend DC would not allow the character to get married. But as Williams' tweet above shows, I was wrong. This is completely insane, and it goes well beyond DC's refusal to publicize an in-universe, homosexual character's proposal to her partner.

 

Leaving aside why DC would piss off one of their best creative teams, I can't fathom why DC would think this was a good idea, or at least not realize what a horrendously bad idea it is. Perhaps they thought that by never bringing it up they could keep the controversial Card hire from getting back into the spotlight, but surely someone at the company realized that allowing the marriage to take place would be a lot less controversial than refusing to let the marriage take place. Did they really not think it would come out? Who are they trying to please with this decision, other than Orson Scott Card and his ilk? Are they really worried about Card's feelings more than the majority of their readership?

 

Originally, I asked if DC realized ignoring the problem isn't actually a solution, but instead another part of the problem. Let me amend that: DC clearly has a problem here. And the fact that they don't seem to even realize it has a problem is possibly the biggest problem of all.

 

 

 

Oh and Marvel also did it(a gay couple getting married) over a year ago.

 

BTW, Wals can you post a list of unacceptable UK news sources?

Edited September 6, 2013 by KaineParker

[Walsingham]

Well, my personal list of unacceptable sources are:

 

Daily Mail

Independent

Daily Express

The Oxford Mail

 

In order of seriousness.

[Malcador]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/swigging-pig-hogs-18-beers

 

Feral pig drinks beer, has an altercation with a cow.

[Raithe]

Sir Patrick Stewart Gets Married: Announces it with typical Genius

 

 

 

Well, Sir Patrick Stewart got married to Sunny Ozell over the weekend in a ceremony officiated by none other than Sir Ian McKellen. So this is already the stuff of nerd dreams, but take a look at how the announcement was made to fans after the break…

 

 

Adorable. On that note, the following image was posted to Facebook by Ian McKellen shortly after the ceremony with the description “I did my part”:

 

 

 

 

 

[Walsingham]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/swigging-pig-hogs-18-beers

 

Feral pig drinks beer, has an altercation with a cow.

 

The lesson I learned from this was to get drunk naked, and not to shave my back.

[ShadySands]

Free pot giveaway to protest proposed tax on marijuana

 

 

Shouting "Free the weed!" scores of marijuana lovers stood in line Monday for free joints offered by opponents of tax issues on the statewide and Denver ballots in November.

 

"It is legal to hand out marijuana to people in Colorado and it is legal to do it without paying a penny in taxes!" shouted Rob Corry, who helped organize the event at Denver's Civic Center.

 

Corry said he supported and helped write the language of Amendment 64, the ballot issue passed last year by Colorado voters that made possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by people over 21 legal under state law. The measure also made it legal for one adult to give an ounce or less of marijuana to another, and it allowed marijuana to be sold in specially licensed stores scheduled to open early next year.

[Walsingham]

 

Free pot giveaway to protest proposed tax on marijuana

 

 

Shouting "Free the weed!" scores of marijuana lovers stood in line Monday for free joints offered by opponents of tax issues on the statewide and Denver ballots in November.

 

"It is legal to hand out marijuana to people in Colorado and it is legal to do it without paying a penny in taxes!" shouted Rob Corry, who helped organize the event at Denver's Civic Center.

 

Corry said he supported and helped write the language of Amendment 64, the ballot issue passed last year by Colorado voters that made possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by people over 21 legal under state law. The measure also made it legal for one adult to give an ounce or less of marijuana to another, and it allowed marijuana to be sold in specially licensed stores scheduled to open early next year.

 

 

While I can see their point, doesn't this just undermine the pragmatic argument for legalisation? Selfish wankers.

[Raithe]

Heh.

BBC News - Eastenders turning Glaswegian Accent to Co**ney

 

Researchers looking at how television viewing can lead to accent changes have claimed Glaswegian fans of EastEnders are picking up Co**ney dialect.

 

Linguists at Glasgow University said the study proved that actively watching TV could speed up language change. They said pronunciation, typically associated with London English, was being increasingly used by Glaswegians who regularly watched the soap. Their findings have been published in the American journal, Language.

 

The study, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, looked at how watching EastEnders was altering certain features of the Scottish accent.

The researchers found two particular features of pronunciation, typically associated with the ****ney dialect, were becoming increasingly apparent in the Glaswegian dialect among regular viewers of the BBC programme. The features were using "f" for "th" in words like "think" and "tooth", and using a vowel sound like that in "good" in place of "l" in words like milk and people.

 

Emotionally engaged

Jane Stuart-Smith, professor of phonetics and lead researcher on the project, said: "Our study shows that the programmes that we watch on television can help to accelerate changes in aspects of language which are also well below the level of conscious awareness.

"In particular, this study was investigating why certain linguistic factors that are normally found within the ****ney dialect in London were gradually entering into Glaswegian.

"Although this trend was apparent in people who had contact with friends or family living in London, there was a stronger effect for people who had strong psychological engagement with characters in EastEnders."

 

The study, however, concluded that simply being exposed to television was not sufficient to cause accent change.

 

It was suggested that for someone's speech to alter, they needed to regularly watch the programme and become emotionally engaged with the characters.

The researchers also highlighted that television and other forms of popular media constituted only one of many factors that help accelerate language change.

Other, more powerful factors, such as social interaction between peers had a much stronger effect on language change in this study.

 

Prof Stuart-Smith added: "We don't properly understand the mechanisms behind these changes, but we do see that the impact of the media is weaker than that of actual social interaction.

"We need many more studies of this kind in order to appreciate properly the influence of television and other popular media on language change."

Ah, the joys of the boards language filters..

[ShadySands]

Testicle size 'link to father role'

 

 

Researchers at Emory University, US, said those with smaller testicles were more likely to be involved with nappy changing, feeding and bath time.