Funny/Strange News Stories

A large part of our government's arguments of late has been that any idiot can get themselves elected.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, is your idiot - senator, butcher and mother of two seeks love with rich, well-hung man half her age ... on national radio:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...deal-man-as-well-hung-on-radio/5615164?pfm=ms

This is the same senator who, in a live interview, offered to spank a television presenter. The real joke is that Tasmanians are outraged at her comments - after all, they elected her in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is your idiot - senator, butcher and mother of two seeks love with rich, well-hung man half her age ... on national radio

"Of course my political enemies will make a big deal out of my comments, but the reality is I was talking with Kim and Dave on Heart FM - not Sarah Ferguson on the ABC."

Now that sounds like a classy gig, if it's the same Sarah Ferguson. Snort.
 
BBC ticker missed out a few words:
BBC_error_2983751b.jpg

Courtesy of the Telegraph.
 
It's funny to see how the loser in the Indonesian presidential elections has been depicted in the media, especially hiven his upcoming high court challenge of the result. They don't say it outright, but it amounts to the following:

"My rival is more popular than I am, is accepted by every minority group in the country, has more moderate policies than I do, had a larger election campaign than I did, does not have any lingering questions about human rights abuses hanging over him the way I do, was tipped by every exit poll to win the election, and was a picture of humility upon claiming victory.

"Clearly, the only say he could have won was through widespread vote rigging and corruption."
 
Is that actually him?
No. That's John Madden. Brett Favre is this guy.
200px-Brett_Favre_at_Florham_Park_11-7-08_081107-N-2022D-033_crop.jpg


John Madden was known for his infatuation of saying Brett Favre was the best football player ever, and kept rambling on about him even when covering games that Favre wasn't playing in.
 
I saw that on /r/childfree. Didn't expect people to pick it up this much. :P

Tough one, it's a pro camera that required preparation. While unattended the animal used (or took, depending on the source) the camera and took a picture. Because it physically pressed a button and knowingly interacted (even if it didn't know it was photographing) it owns the image. Except it can't legally own the image and therefore it belongs to the public domain.

Interesting case.
 
Tough one, it's a pro camera that required preparation. While unattended the animal used (or took, depending on the source) the camera and took a picture. Because it physically pressed a button and knowingly interacted (even if it didn't know it was photographing) it owns the image. Except it can't legally own the image and therefore it belongs to the public domain.

Interesting case.
Just pointing out, I think you quoted the wrong post. :mischievous:
 
Tough one, it's a pro camera that required preparation. While unattended the animal used (or took, depending on the source) the camera and took a picture. Because it physically pressed a button and knowingly interacted (even if it didn't know it was photographing) it owns the image. Except it can't legally own the image and therefore it belongs to the public domain.

Interesting case.
What's fun here is that the argument that the photographer owns the image regardless of recognised competence under law technically means the police cannot use speed camera images in prosecution for speeding offences...
 
What's fun here is that the argument that the photographer owns the image regardless of recognised competence under law technically means the police cannot use speed camera images in prosecution for speeding offences...

Hmm, I was wondering if an IR-beam-triggered photograph of the macaque would have worked the same way... would the setter-of-the-trigger hold the rights over the triggering party?

In this case the macaque pressed a button and physically interacted with the equipment. Is the trigger mechanism the key part of deciding ownership where multiple parties have played certain actions in the taking of a photograph?
 
Would the work to set up the camera be roughly equivalent to providing paint, brush and canvas to an elephant? If so, does that suggest that the photo should not be public domain, or that the paintings done by elephants should also be public domain?
 
The IR trigger is the most applicable to this case.

The photographer sets up the camera for the shot. Even if he is not the one pressing the trigger, he owns the photograph that occurs.

To say that he doesn't own the photo because a non-human agency is responsible for the final triggering of the photo is to claim that said non-human agency has the exact same rights as a human.

Wikimedia should, by all rights, lose this case. But it sucks the guy has to put up so much money to prosecute what should be an open-and-shut case.
 
Quote time: I remember hearing a radio interview with Australian Rules Football player Alipate Carlile. One topic that came up was a big on-field brawl that had happened that weekend. When asked about his involvement Carlile said "Nah, I'm a lover not a fighter. I was just in there pulling guys off".
 
Back