
The Random Image Thread (keeping it PG-13 at the worst)
Fancy cakemaker shows what is inside his cakes:


I had read somewhere that the heart is animated with a simulated beat. Otherwise it is all edible.


I had read somewhere that the heart is animated with a simulated beat. Otherwise it is all edible.
Goth wedding cake?
In all seriousness, that is both disturbing and awesome at the same time.
In all seriousness, that is both disturbing and awesome at the same time.
radarman wrote: Goth wedding cake?
In all seriousness, that is both disturbing and awesome at the same time.
Actually it appears he just made as a lark to answer the questions he got asking "What is in your cakes?"
- DukeofNuke
- Posts: 33881
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
- Title: FREE RADICAL
- Location: Scintillating!

Why grammar is important...
radarman wrote:
Why grammar is important...
never mind the grammar, why the hell would you get that message permanently put in your flesh?
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
- lleviathann
- Posts: 3241
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:29 pm
- Title: The itch you can't scratch
So you have something you'll regret when you're 40.
Ever look at someone and think 'a million sperm and that was the fastest one.'
- DukeofNuke
- Posts: 33881
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
- Title: FREE RADICAL
- Location: Scintillating!
DukeofNuke wrote: Some one she loved left her for someone else.
She could have said, "If you love someone, set them free."
but that's copyrighted.
Yeah, it would suck to get sued, have to strip down for the court, and then get hit for $150k for willful infringement when it was all over with.
radarman wrote:DukeofNuke wrote: Some one she loved left her for someone else.
She could have said, "If you love someone, set them free."
but that's copyrighted.
Yeah, it would suck to get sued, have to strip down for the court, and then get hit for $150k for willful infringement when it was all over with.
While I wouldn't put it above some copyright lawyers try this, doesn't there have to be some amount of financial gain to make such a lawsuit worthwhile? And while the pictured woman might have to display her tattoo if such a lawsuit got to the courts, the person being sued wouldn't be that woman but the tattoo artist.
Silliness on Facebook:

With the caption:
Storm the Spielberg mansion!!!

With the caption:
Jay Branscomb
Disgraceful photo of recreational hunter happily posing next to a Triceratops he just slaughtered. Please share so the world can name and shame this despicable man. — with John Baker, Jack Quevedo, Hono Elizalde and Desiree Elizalde.
Storm the Spielberg mansion!!!
DEyncourt wrote:radarman wrote:DukeofNuke wrote: Some one she loved left her for someone else.
She could have said, "If you love someone, set them free."
but that's copyrighted.
Yeah, it would suck to get sued, have to strip down for the court, and then get hit for $150k for willful infringement when it was all over with.
While I wouldn't put it above some copyright lawyers try this, doesn't there have to be some amount of financial gain to make such a lawsuit worthwhile? And while the pictured woman might have to display her tattoo if such a lawsuit got to the courts, the person being sued wouldn't be that woman but the tattoo artist.
Jammie Thomas (who admittedly is a dumbass) was briefly on the hook for $1.9M for non-commercial infringement while file sharing. It has since been reduced to a mere $222K. So no, apparently there doesn't have to be any financial gain to get nailed in the ass by a copyright holder.
Of course, the copyright holder has to expect to get something out of it, which in the case of Thomas, was a favorable court ruling with which to use in their other extortion attempts, er, lawsuits. (they haven't gotten a penny out of Thomas, despite spending more than $1M, so it had to have been the precedent) So, if this woman isn't worth all that much financially, she probably could have gotten away with it.
- Donkey Butter
- Posts: 1662
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 8:15 am
- Title: jerk face
- Location: over yonder
radarman wrote:DEyncourt wrote:radarman wrote:DukeofNuke wrote: Some one she loved left her for someone else.
She could have said, "If you love someone, set them free."
but that's copyrighted.
Yeah, it would suck to get sued, have to strip down for the court, and then get hit for $150k for willful infringement when it was all over with.
While I wouldn't put it above some copyright lawyers try this, doesn't there have to be some amount of financial gain to make such a lawsuit worthwhile? And while the pictured woman might have to display her tattoo if such a lawsuit got to the courts, the person being sued wouldn't be that woman but the tattoo artist.
Jammie Thomas (who admittedly is a dumbass) was briefly on the hook for $1.9M for non-commercial infringement while file sharing. It has since been reduced to a mere $222K. So no, apparently there doesn't have to be any financial gain to get nailed in the ass by a copyright holder.
Of course, the copyright holder has to expect to get something out of it, which in the case of Thomas, was a favorable court ruling with which to use in their other extortion attempts, er, lawsuits. (they haven't gotten a penny out of Thomas, despite spending more than $1M, so it had to have been the precedent) So, if this woman isn't worth all that much financially, she probably could have gotten away with it.
The difference in Thomas' case was that she was being fined statutory damages for violation of the RIAA-designed laws covering music copyright. Even with the various reductions those fines were designed to be monetary punishment as opposed to being appropriate compensation. Her case was supposed to be a lesson to us all not to violate music copyright (rather than the lesson that laws shouldn't be written by the people who stand to benefit directly from them).
The Royal Observatory announces the "short list" of the Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2014.
My personal favorite:

There are 16 other selections plus a short description for each of the photos.
My personal favorite:
There are 16 other selections plus a short description for each of the photos.
DEyncourt wrote:radarman wrote:DEyncourt wrote:radarman wrote:DukeofNuke wrote: Some one she loved left her for someone else.
She could have said, "If you love someone, set them free."
but that's copyrighted.
Yeah, it would suck to get sued, have to strip down for the court, and then get hit for $150k for willful infringement when it was all over with.
While I wouldn't put it above some copyright lawyers try this, doesn't there have to be some amount of financial gain to make such a lawsuit worthwhile? And while the pictured woman might have to display her tattoo if such a lawsuit got to the courts, the person being sued wouldn't be that woman but the tattoo artist.
Jammie Thomas (who admittedly is a dumbass) was briefly on the hook for $1.9M for non-commercial infringement while file sharing. It has since been reduced to a mere $222K. So no, apparently there doesn't have to be any financial gain to get nailed in the ass by a copyright holder.
Of course, the copyright holder has to expect to get something out of it, which in the case of Thomas, was a favorable court ruling with which to use in their other extortion attempts, er, lawsuits. (they haven't gotten a penny out of Thomas, despite spending more than $1M, so it had to have been the precedent) So, if this woman isn't worth all that much financially, she probably could have gotten away with it.
The difference in Thomas' case was that she was being fined statutory damages for violation of the RIAA-designed laws covering music copyright. Even with the various reductions those fines were designed to be monetary punishment as opposed to being appropriate compensation. Her case was supposed to be a lesson to us all not to violate music copyright (rather than the lesson that laws shouldn't be written by the people who stand to benefit directly from them).
If the award had been something that didn't instantly bankrupt a person, I could see it as a penalty. As it stands, I see it more as a "We didn't pay all that money for favorable legislation to have you peasants to ignore our extortion letters." thing instead.
Fortunately, the recording industry still needs people to like them enough that they knocked it off after that. Unfortunately, it encouraged the trolls to come out from under their bridges.
radarman wrote:DEyncourt wrote:radarman wrote:DEyncourt wrote:radarman wrote:DukeofNuke wrote: Some one she loved left her for someone else.
She could have said, "If you love someone, set them free."
but that's copyrighted.
Yeah, it would suck to get sued, have to strip down for the court, and then get hit for $150k for willful infringement when it was all over with.
While I wouldn't put it above some copyright lawyers try this, doesn't there have to be some amount of financial gain to make such a lawsuit worthwhile? And while the pictured woman might have to display her tattoo if such a lawsuit got to the courts, the person being sued wouldn't be that woman but the tattoo artist.
Jammie Thomas (who admittedly is a dumbass) was briefly on the hook for $1.9M for non-commercial infringement while file sharing. It has since been reduced to a mere $222K. So no, apparently there doesn't have to be any financial gain to get nailed in the ass by a copyright holder.
Of course, the copyright holder has to expect to get something out of it, which in the case of Thomas, was a favorable court ruling with which to use in their other extortion attempts, er, lawsuits. (they haven't gotten a penny out of Thomas, despite spending more than $1M, so it had to have been the precedent) So, if this woman isn't worth all that much financially, she probably could have gotten away with it.
The difference in Thomas' case was that she was being fined statutory damages for violation of the RIAA-designed laws covering music copyright. Even with the various reductions those fines were designed to be monetary punishment as opposed to being appropriate compensation. Her case was supposed to be a lesson to us all not to violate music copyright (rather than the lesson that laws shouldn't be written by the people who stand to benefit directly from them).
If the award had been something that didn't instantly bankrupt a person, I could see it as a penalty. As it stands, I see it more as a "We didn't pay all that money for favorable legislation to have you peasants to ignore our extortion letters." thing instead.
Fortunately, the recording industry still needs people to like them enough that they knocked it off after that. Unfortunately, it encouraged the trolls to come out from under their bridges.
Well, I'm glad that someone here at Macstack considers $222K not enough to "instantly bankrupt a person.'
We didn't always have gopros, and now that guys been replaced with a little box that fits in your pocket.


Kirk wrote: They made the aluminum thin for weight savings. I bet at this point they wished it was thicker.
Yeah, but didn't they test it here where there's more gravity? Shouldn't they have known better?
And it weighs a ton (not "a lot", an actual ton, like around 1000 Kg), that thing is bigger and heavier than a Smart Car.
Anyway, here's a link about the damage:
http://www.space.com/26472-mars-rover-c ... amage.html
Basically, it can still reach the intended destination, but they'll have to take a longer route with softer sandy terrain. They also say going backwards can help.
ukimalefu wrote: We didn't always have gopros, and now that guys been replaced with a little box that fits in your pocket.![]()
And for those who couldn't afford a guy hanging off the front of their car:

- DukeofNuke
- Posts: 33881
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
- Title: FREE RADICAL
- Location: Scintillating!
j_tso wrote:ukimalefu wrote: We didn't always have gopros, and now that guys been replaced with a little box that fits in your pocket.![]()
And for those who couldn't afford a guy hanging off the front of their car:![]()
Jackie Stewart ?
intellectual/hipster/nihilist
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan