Archive for the ‘ Funny ’ Category

Late to the ATTN Party

These are really quite clever. Appar­ently they’ve been around for a while.

Diving Sign Fail

Via FAIL Blog, this Orange County sign: The ref­er­ences are to the Orange County Cod­i­fied Ordi­nances. The ordi­nances read: Sec. 2–5–49. — Diving/​​jumping. No per­son shall dive or jump into any body of water in park, beach or any recre­ational area from any pier, bridge, rock or precipice other than at those places des­ig­nated and posted for div­ing or jump­ing by the Direc­tor, as autho­rized by res­o­lu­tion of the Board of Super­vi­sors. Vio­la­tion of this sec­tion shall be an infrac­tion. Sec. 2–5–49.1. — Land­ing in water after hav­ing jumped or dived. No per­son shall land in any body of water in [ . . . ]

Read the Rest...

How I Roll

British Official Knows Nothing About First Amendment

Via Prawfs­blawg, a story from Reuters India reports that a British offi­cial has asked Cal­i­for­nia Gov­er­nor Schwarzeneg­ger to shut down a Web­site that she says encour­ages pros­ti­tu­tion in the UK. Pros­ti­tu­tion is legal in the UK. Quoth the offi­cial, Surely it can’t be too dif­fi­cult for “The Ter­mi­na­tor” to ter­mi­nate Pun­ter­net and that’s what I am demand­ing that he does. Patently, Ms Har­man is not acquainted with our First Amend­ment, which is pre­cisely what pre­vents “The Ter­mi­na­tor” from “ter­mi­nat­ing” such a Web­site. The Website’s owner responds with a brief les­son in free speech, then thanks Ms Har­man for the ben­e­fi­cial effects of her igno­rance: In clos­ing, I would [ . . . ]

Read the Rest...

Who Is In Favor Of Those Guys Taking A Big Pay Cut? Anyone?

Today’s Dil­bert is very sub­tle. Dil­bert tends to be pretty much hit-​​​​or-​​​​miss most of the time, but today Scott Adams pulled off a nice, sub­tle strip with a double-​​​​meaning.

1930s Futuristic Fashion Predictions

And candy for cuties! They were right about the can­tilever heels, pants, and mobile phones, at least. My favorite is the headlight.

Over-​​the-​​Shoulder Boulder Holder

William Gluckin & Co. v. Int’l. Play­tex Corp., 407 F.2d 177 (2d Cir. 1969), is an opin­ion uphold­ing the issuance of a pre­lim­i­nary injunc­tion against Play­tex, man­u­fac­turer of, ahem, ladies’ sup­port gar­ments, pro­hibit­ing Play­tex from pros­e­cut­ing a law­suit it had filed against Wool­worth & Co. for sell­ing brassieres man­u­fac­tured by Gluckin at Woolworth’s stores in Geor­gia. See, what hap­pened was this: Play­tex had a patent, and Gluckin (allegedly) infringed the patent and sold the infring­ing unmen­tion­ables to Wool­worths, who sold lots of them in Geor­gia. Woolworth’s, Play­tex, and Gluckin were all New York cor­po­ra­tions amenable to suit in New York, but Gluckin was not [ . . . ]

Read the Rest...