Sep. 21st, 2017 11:02 am
[syndicated profile] forgottenbookmarks_feed

Posted by Michael Popek


Found in "The Path of Thunder" by Peter Abrahams. Published by Harper, 1948.

-Click to enlarge photos-

Groo - Friends and Foes #1 (2015)

Sep. 21st, 2017 10:28 am
riddler13: (Default)
[personal profile] riddler13 in [community profile] scans_daily
"Each month of this yearlong series, Groo and his faithful pooch, Rufferto, encounter a different acquaintance--or enemy--with the usual dire consequences! In #1, Groo crosses paths with Captain Ahax, the seaman with the world record for most ships sunk by the all-time stupidest character in comics! Brought to you by the award-winning team of Sergio Aragonés and Mark Evanier!"

The plot revolves around a little girl, Kayli, who is looking for her father - a member of the Groo cast (fortunately for her, it's not him). She stumbles upon Groo and they travel along while he wreaks havoc unintentionally.

Seaman *snickers* )

Fissure vs fisher

Sep. 21st, 2017 02:37 pm
[syndicated profile] grammarist_feed

Posted by Grammarist-writer

Fissure and fisher are two words that are pronounced in the same manner but are spelled differently and have different meanings, which makes them homophones. We will examine the definitions of the words fissure and fisher, where these terms came from and some examples of their use in sentences. A fissure is an opening made […]
[syndicated profile] smbc_comics_feed

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

I tried this on a seven year old and it didn't work. I think there might be a sweet spot, taking into account trustworthiness and writing ability. Alternatively, you could spend seven years being kind an honest to a nephew or niece, just so you can pull this off.

New comic!
Today's News:

Hey geeks! We've sold 1/3 of all Seattle BAHFest tickets in just a few days. This one's definitely selling out, so buy soon if you want to lock in a spot!

We're also having a pre-show chat with me about Soonish. The tickets are just $1.

musesfool: mal & zoe, out of gas (can't take the sky)
[personal profile] musesfool
Monday night, [personal profile] innie_darling and I met up to see the new Jake Gyllenhaal/Tatiana Maslany movie about the Boston Marathon bombing, Stronger. The acting was good, I thought. It was not the kind of movie I would have sought out on my own, but I was glad to have seen it.

While we were waiting for the movie to start, we were talking about fannish things as per usual, and about how I sometimes classify a pairing as "I don't not ship it" and in thinking about it more over the past couple of days, I came up with my own personal taxonomy of shipping:

- OTP OF OTPS (i.e., the all-time greats, ironclad, no matter what)
- I ship it!
- I don't not ship it
- I could/might be convinced to ship it
- I don't care (i.e., if it shows up in a story that otherwise has things going for it, I'll keep reading, but I don't seek it out)
- meh, I don't ship it / it bores me so I don't read it
- I dislike it but whatever, other people can do what they like, I can scroll past
- NOTP (i.e., it's blocked so I don't have to sully my eyes with it)

Generally, when I talk about a pairing as as "I don't not ship it," I mean that they are people who are most definitely weird about each other, which is one of my personal flags for shipping, but in this particular classification, I don't care if they are having sex with each other or not (or with other people, depending), as long as they are somehow together – partners, brothers, whatever. I think (I hope!) it's implicit that I understand why people would ship them*, but I just...don't take that particular read on the relationship under most circumstances.

*as opposed to pairings where I don't.

And if they are having sex, I personally prefer it not to be framed romantically? Or, rather, in most cases, in terms of canon (rather than AU) settings, I don't find the usual shippy romantic tropes particularly interesting with these sorts of pairings. I mean, sure, 'there's only one bed' or fake dating are always on the table, but I don't feel like even those tropes should follow the regular narrative path. The clearest examples we came up with were Sam/Dean and Mal/Zoe, and I mean, I don't see either of those pairings as people who go on dates or have traditionally madcap rom com hijinks (which isn't to say that that couldn't be done with great results, but I don't think it could be played straight, as it were [I mean, Sam/Dean is incest, so it has its own challenges]). And she threw in Middleman/Wendy (which I do ship more traditionally), and I brought up Obi-Wan/Anakin, which is what I'm having complicated feelings about lately, and so it seems like a useful category to have. idk.


Introducing Randall Flagg

Sep. 21st, 2017 10:17 am
cyberghostface: (Right One 2)
[personal profile] cyberghostface in [community profile] scans_daily

Today is Stephen King's 70th birthday. To celebrate I figured I would post a few pages from Marvel's adaptation of The Stand showcasing Randall Flagg, who I think is one of King's greatest villains.

I'm a man of wealth and taste. )


Sep. 21st, 2017 08:55 am
oracne: turtle (Default)
[personal profile] oracne
Hurrah for hermiting!

Things I could have done on Wednesday: lunchtime free Zumba class, free Bach Collegium concert.

Things I did do on Wednesday: went straight home, ate, showered, crawled into bed with fanfiction, went to sleep early, sleeeeeeeeeeept.

I feel much better today, in the sense that fewer things hurt physically. And I realized this morning that nothing was stopping me from taking a day off tomorrow. That would mean I can sleep in after "Elizabeth Cree" tonight, and go to bed early before my crack of dawn train to NYC on Saturday morning.

What a removal of mental weight. A day off. How glorious. It will be much easier to enjoy my day in NY with a reasonable amount of sleep beforehand.

Weekly Ballet Post, 9/21/17

Sep. 21st, 2017 10:10 am
sputnikhearts: female ballet student at the barre (tendu)
[personal profile] sputnikhearts
Nothing teaches you the existence of muscles that you didn't know existed like a nice slow dégagé to the side ... except maybe ronde de jambe en l'air. It kind of feels like gravity is wrenching your hip out of its socket.

Other discovery: one major reason that turning is hard is because no matter how good your spotting is, your damn body has to support the spot. If your body can't maintain a vertical line and keep your eyes at the same level in all three axes, you're sunk. This discovery brought to you by trying to do chainé turns quickly, which required going on demipointe, which I was not terribly stable on.

And in the annals of "skills I have but did not find them as helpful as I had hoped," an interesting divide was visible in this week's class. The teacher doesn't always follow the musical pattern during combinations, which drives me batty. Why are you doing four count combinations on music with 3/4 time? Unless you are combining three beats into one. Anyway, at one point she said to do eight jumps, but the music was in 6/8, so a couple of us just ... kept going ... because the measure wasn't over! (And sometimes the teacher totally goes off the beat, and then I just can't follow at all, because the movements and the music don't mesh in my head, and it all gets tossed out of short term memory.)

The other bit where classical piano training made dance hard for me at first is that in ballet, steps are often syncopated. Hence the joke that "and" is a number. At first I was really annoyed by this and thought it was irrational, then realized I was the irrational one. This happens because these movements are usually in two parts: you do the step, then you pull back into the starting position. So if you are doing four tendus in a 4/4 measure, you should extend on 0.5, then close on 1. So that you can extend on 1.5, and be closed again on 2. Etc., with the goal of finishing on the last beat. And if you are doing the steps slower, then you are effectively working in 2/4, and you're still moving on the off-beat. It was a revelation. (I suppose those who did marching band would have understood immediately!)

Unbelievably, however, the best skill I brought to ballet was something I learned from doing junior high musicals. Now I was too terrible to get a real part—four failed tryouts ha ha ha are testament to this fact—but the chorus line (essentially) was come one come all. The pas de bourrée (youtube link)—a really common step in Broadway-ish dancing—was drilled into our skulls and feet. So thanks, Mrs. Hoffenberg. You might have taught me the most out of anyone else in that school, in the end. (Teach the arts in public school! /soapbox)

Speaking of classes, I have now used up the 10-lesson card that I purchased at my current studio. I love my teacher but it is a long drive (now that I've moved) and conflicts with another need for the car this school semester. There's a studio closer to me that I can bike to and gives beginner class on the same night. Am contemplating trying it out next week, although it makes me sad. We shall see. Worst case, I can go back in January.

Thriller (Part One)

Sep. 21st, 2017 02:49 pm
lost_spook: (suzanne neve)
[personal profile] lost_spook
[I wrote this post a month ago, but it took me a while to do the pictures and fix it up. I'm catching up now, though!]

I have returned to watching some Thriller installments (a 1970s ITC/ATV film anthology created and frequently written by Brian Clemens, of The Avengers and Professionals fame. It's not like The Avengers, though. Brian Clemens has clearly forgotten the possibility that sometimes women can sort stuff out themselves without being rescued by men. If they're rescued at all, this being a thriller anthology.)

Anyway, do you want to hear all about how innocent American tourists were terrorised every time they came to Britain in the 1970s? Surely, you must. I will oblige, by reviewing my viewing so far, before I forget. (This is a 16-disc set!)

Cut for recaps, spoilers, flippancy and picspam )

SIGNAL BOOST and also a check in

Sep. 21st, 2017 09:52 am
balsamandash: Kat (Eastwick) clasping her hands together and looking off and up (ew] the heartlines on your hand)
[personal profile] balsamandash
We are in Ohio and well! We've had a [personal profile] forests_of_fire on and off and are gonna explore North Market a little later today. We fell in love with Tim Horton's coffee and our hotel has great waffles and I apparently calm down a lot on planes once the initial take-off is done, so. Everything is good!

Now on to more important things: [personal profile] analise010 is a wonderful, awesome person who I have been lucky enough over the last -- near-year? Something like that. She is great, and she is also having problems with jobs. Her goal is to become an actuary -- which requires a test, which requires a truly ridiculous amount of money to charge people.

She is looking to raise money, and offering Tarot/Oracle readings. Her readings are great, so if you have a little extra to spare, please take a look and see if you can help.

A Series of Unfortunate Monograms

Sep. 21st, 2017 01:00 pm
[syndicated profile] cakewrecks_feed

Posted by Jen

Who thought this was a good idea?


Or this?

(Never in my life have I so fervently hoped that a cake was chocolate.)


Or, Aunt Flo help us, this?

"So, when's the party?"

"At the end of the month."


Amy M., Jenna B., & Kim W., URQTs. At least, I like to think that you are. Not in a creepy way, of course, or like I know firsthand because I secretly stalk you or anything...that would just be weird. I mean, look, I'm just trying to give you a friendly compliment, in a completely platonic, non-stalker-esque kind of way, Ok? Ok. As you were.


Thank you for using our Amazon links to shop! USA, UK, Canada.

[syndicated profile] rebeccatushnet_feed

Posted by Rebecca Tushnet

American Beverage Association v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 16-16072 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2017)

Plaintiffs challenged a SF ordinance requiring warnings about the health effects of certain sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) on certain fixed advertising (e.g., billboards) in the city. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s refusal to preliminarily enjoin the ordinance, on the grounds that the required disclosure was controversial/misleading and unduly burdensome.

The ordinance required ads to contain this warning: “WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.”  Covered ads excluded, inter alia, ads in periodicals, television, electronic media, SSB containers or packaging, menus, shelf tags, vehicles, or logos that occupied an area less than thirty-six square inches.  SSBs were defined to include soda and other non-alcoholic beverages that contain one or more added sweeteners and more than twenty-five calories per twelve fluid ounces of beverage, but not milk, milk alternatives primarily consisting of plant-based ingredients, 100% natural fruit juice, natural vegetable juice, infant formula, medical food, supplements, and certain other products.  The warning had to occupy 20 percent of a covered ad and be set off with a rectangular border. San Francisco’s purposes included the desire to “inform the public of the presence of added sugars and thus promote informed consumer choice that may result in reduced caloric intake and improved diet and health, thereby reducing illnesses to which [sugar-sweetened beverages] contribute and associated economic burdens.”

Zauderer applies to mandatory disclosures, whether or not they are designed to remedy deception.  A “purely factual and uncontroversial disclosure that is not unduly burdensome will withstand First Amendment scrutiny so long as it is reasonably related to a substantial government interest.” The government has the burden of showing that a disclosure is purely factual and uncontroversial, not unduly burdensome, and reasonably related to a substantial government interest.  “[U]ncontroversial” here “refers to the factual accuracy of the compelled disclosure, not to its subjective impact on the audience,” and a “literally true but nonetheless misleading and, in that sense, untrue” disclosure is not purely factual under Zauderer.

The majority concluded that “the factual accuracy of the warning is, at a minimum, controversial.” he unqualified statement that “[d]rinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay” “conveys the message that sugar-sweetened beverages contribute to these health conditions regardless of the quantity consumed or other lifestyle choices.” This message contradicted FDA statements that added sugars are “generally recognized as safe,” and “can be a part of a healthy dietary pattern when not consumed in excess amounts.” SF’s experts concluded that “there is a clear scientific consensus” that sugar-sweetened beverages contribute to obesity and diabetes through “excessive caloric intake” and “by adding extra calories to the diet,” but didn’t directly challenge the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ expert that “when consumed as part of a diet that balances caloric intake with energy output, consuming beverages with added sugar does not contribute to obesity or diabetes.” Because SF’s warning wasn’t about overconsumption, and it said “contributes” instead of “may contribute,” “the accuracy of the warning is in reasonable dispute.”

Furhtermore, the warning was “misleading and, in that sense, untrue.” By focusing on a single product and not on others with an equal or greater amount of added sugars and calories, “the warning conveys the message that sugar-sweetened beverages are less healthy than other sources of added sugars and calories and are more likely to contribute to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay than other foods.”  Borrowing an example from plaintiffs, the court reasoned that “If car dealers were required to post a warning only on Toyota vehicles that said: ‘WARNING: Toyotas contribute to roll-over crashes,’ the common-sense conclusion would be that Toyotas are more likely to cause rollovers than other vehicles.”

[Note: not all courts will apply this interpretive standard, which relies on the ordinary rules of implicature, to false advertising cases. They should.  Second note: under false advertising precedents, misleadingness is a matter of extrinsic evidence, not simple reading.  If the government’s burden is to show that the disclosure is nonmisleading, should it have to provide expert or survey evidence of this?  If the government does provide such evidence of nonmisleadingness, can it rebut the court’s conclusions about the meaning of the disclosure?  I have my own conclusions about this, but more overarchingly I believe that judicial reasoning about how consumers react to information should be consistent across cases, adjusting appropriately for who has the burden of proof.]

The current state of research on this issue indicated that this message was deceptive. According to the FDA, “added sugars, including sugar-sweetened beverages, are no more likely to cause weight gain in adults than any other source of energy.” The American Dental Association likewise cautioned against the “growing popularity of singling-out sugar-sweetened beverages” because “ the evidence is not yet sufficient to single out any one food or beverage product as a key driver of dental caries.” SF argued that an underinclusive warning is okay because it was entitled “to attack problems piecemeal.” But the problem was that the warning was potentially misleading, not because it “does not get at all facets of the problem it is designed to ameliorate.”

SF argued that people were more likely to over-consume sugar-sweetened beverages than other foods. “But even if it were undisputed that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages gives rise to unique behavioral risks, the warning does not communicate that information”—it didn’t mention behavioral risks, “and thus clearly implies that there is something inherent about sugar-sweetened beverages that contributes to these health risks in a way that other sugar-sweetened products do not, regardless of consumer behavior.”  [This is an example of how “inherent” is usually an unhelpful concept when people are involved.]   The district court erred in finding that it would be unreasonable to interpret the warning to mean that sugar-sweetened beverages are uniquely or inherently unhealthy.

Separately, the warning imposed an undue burden because it required a black box, bold warning covering 20 percent of the ads, making it impractical to advertise on covered media.  The court of appeals agreed that “the black box warning overwhelms other visual elements in the advertisement,” thus imposing an undue burden.  Although the district court reasoned that a commercial speaker could use the remaining 80 percent of its advertising space to engage in counter-speech, that wasn’t enough—the speaker was being forced “to tailor its speech to an opponent’s agenda,” and to respond to a one-sided and misleading message when it would “prefer to be silent” (which sounds like it’s going back to point one).  “[C]ountering San Francisco’s misleading message would leave them little room to communicate their intended message. This would defeat the purpose of the advertisement, turning it into a vehicle for a debate about the health effects of sugar-sweetened beverages.”
sample ad submitted by plaintiffs
Plaintiffs submitted unrefuted declarations from major companies manufacturing sugar-sweetened beverages stating that they’d remove advertising from covered media if San Francisco’s ordinance went into effect. Effectively ruling out advertising in a particular medium was evidence of undue burden (consider the effect of this holding on FTC/FDA disclosure rules and Twitter ads).   The district court erred in rejecting this evidence because the declarations were “self-serving,” which alone isn’t enough reason to disregard an affidavit.  The district court also reasoned that tobacco and pharmaceutical companies continued to advertise despite being compelled to provide similar warnings. But SSBs don’t have “the same physiologically addictive qualities as tobacco, nor are they prescribed by doctors to treat health conditions like pharmaceutical products. There is no evidence in the record that advertisers have continued advertising products analogous to sugar-sweetened beverages in the face of compelled disclosures of the sort required here.”  

[While I understand why the payoff from addiction might be enough to get tobacco companies to continue to advertise despite the warnings, I don’t get the second distinction.  If anything, the availability of an alternate means to get to the consumer—advertising to doctors who prescribe drugs—makes it even clearer that the benefits of advertising directly to consumers induce pharmacos to continue to advertise despite onerous disclosure requirements, thus not chilling their speech.  Is the distinction one of care exercised by consumers in choosing?  The profit margin on drugs/payoff per ad dollar, on which no factual findings have been made?  That’s all I can come up with at the moment.]

Though SF had a substantial government interest in the health of its citizens, it failed to meet its burden for these reasons, though the court commented in a footnote that SF might not even be able to establish that providing misleading information through an unduly burdensome disclosure was reasonably related to its substantial interest in the health of its citizens. Indeed, San Francisco “has no legitimate reason to force retailers to affix false information on their products.”

Judge Nelson concurred in the judgment because of the warning’s size.  “[T]he City has not carried its burden in demonstrating that the twenty percent requirement at issue here would not deter certain entities from advertising in their medium of choice.” She wouldn’t have ruled on the “tenuous” ground that the disclosure was misleading.
havocthecat: angry christina ricci with a chainsaw (feelings kill them all)
[personal profile] havocthecat
Not because I dislike the heat, because I unironically like 90+ degree hot, humid weather, but because it's given the ragweed fresh life. I'm sneezing non-stop.

Also dead

Sep. 21st, 2017 08:44 am
supergee: (mourning)
[personal profile] supergee
Harry Dean Stanton: the life of a Repo Man (or an apostle) is intense

Lotfi Zadeh: Fuzzy Wuzzy wuz a logic.

Len Wein: beloved comics guy

Jake LaMotta: lasted remarkably long, for a boxer

Lillian Ross: wrote a fascinating peek into that great big wonderful dysfunctional family known as
The New Yorker. (She did a deliberate Good Grief, It’s Daddy)

Stanislav Petrov: saved the world


kindkit: A late-Victorian futuristic zeppelin. (Default)

September 2017

3 456 78 9

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 03:53 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios