Does anyone care about anything? If you care about things, then maybe you'd be interested in knowing we're working on something to upload photos from our shtuff phones onto the site, live, and sort of kind of 24/7.
So far, I have a beta working on Flickr, which you can find here.
Eventually this live cell phone pics uploading device will be working here so you can see what we're doing in aesthetic pleasure.
Banned for a century for inspiring madness and murder, absinthe is legal again. So pour yourself a glass and get to know the real Green Fairy.
<!-- -->
Absinthe is legal in the United States for the first time since 1912, the year it was banned in America. Eight years later, Prohibition levied the same fate on all spirits, but while beer, wine, and liquor made a triumphant comeback -- expanding into an industry that can cozily encompass both a Courvoisier XO and a can of Pabst Blue Ribbon -- absinthe languished in exile for nearly a century, a casualty of bad publicity, special-interest lobbies and mythology. That allowed absinthe to become something of an urban legend, something to talk about in whispers, with wide eyes. Much is said about absinthe; very little of that is true.
So let's clear up a few misconceptions. Absinthe does not make you hallucinate. It is not wildly addictive. It will not cause you to lop off your ear, unless (possibly, on the off-chance) you are a deeply disturbed painter racked by poverty, heartbreak and mental illness. Rather, absinthe is a good drink. It is most reminiscent of Pernod, a kick of licorice with a lingering menthol taste. (The similarity is not coincidental; Henri-Louis Pernod first commercialized absinthe in France in 1805.) Absinthe's flavor comes from its muscular key components -- anise, wormwood and fennel -- and though it's certainly an acquired taste, there's also something appealing about the ritual and presentation of it. Absinthe has its own special glasses, slotted spoons and drips. Absinthe even has its own verb, "louche," to describe the milky cloud kicking up when water hits the drink. Watching this -- on the right night, in the right light--you start to understand why artists like Toulouse-Lautrec and Rimbaud and Verlaine found inspiration in the stuff. And you start to understand why people might think it contained a little bit of black magic, too.
Casey Aldridge, father of the child of Jamie Lynn Spears, Nickelodeon actress, has not yet come to speak publicly about the situation but his mother is excited to be a grandma from what she has told reporters. Casey has reportedly been dating the girl for some time now and they have indulged the desire to have unprotected fornication with a not-so-good result for a couple their age.
It has been confirmed in a magazine interview which comes out tomorrow (Wednesday Dec 19) that the sixteen year old child actress is pregnant, yes, with a child. She plans on keeping the baby, and the only thing Nickelodeon released as a statement was, "We respect Jamie Lynn's decision to take responsibility in this sensitive and personal situation. We know this is a very difficult time for her and her family, and our primary concern right now is for Jamie Lynn's well being."
Britney, it has been rumored, is in a frantic state of upset feelings, blah blah blah, nobody cares anymore.
Those MP3 and AAC files that you've ripped from your CD collection are still "unauthorized copies" in the eyes of the recording industry. In a brief filed late last week, the RIAA said that the MP3 files on a PC owned by a file-sharing defendant who had admitted to ripping them himself were "unauthorized copies."
Atlantic v. Howell is a bit unusual because the defendants, husband and wife Jeffrey and Pamela Howell, are defending themselves against the recording industry's lawsuit without the benefit of a lawyer. They were sued by the RIAA in August 2006 after an investigator from SafeNet discovered evidence of file-sharing over the KaZaA network.
The Howells have denied any copyright infringement on their part. In their response to the RIAA's lawsuit, they said that the MP3 files on their PC are and "always have been" for private use. "The files in question are for transfer to portable devices, that is legal for 'fair use,'" reads their response.
After several years of litigation and nearly 30,000 lawsuits, making a copy of a CD you bought for your own personal usage is still a concept that the recording industry is apparently uncomfortable with. During the Jammie Thomas trial this fall, the head of litigation from Sony BMG testified that she believed that ripping your own CDs is stealing.
When asked by the RIAA's lead counsel whether it was wrong for consumers to make copies of CDs they have purchased, Jennifer Pariser replied in the negative. "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song," said Pariser. Making "a copy" of a song you own is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," according to Pariser.
At least the recording industry is consistent. Last year, during the triennial review of the DMCA by the US Copyright Office, the record labels made the case that although consumers could freely and easily make copies of music on CDs, doing so is not explicitly authorized by the labels. Since they have not expressly authorized copying—even for the purposes of making backups—the ability to make copies should not be mistaken for fair use.
Based on the filing in Atlantic v. Howell and Pariser's testimony, a lot of us have a bunch of "unauthorized" and "stolen" music on our hard drives—music that we've purchased ourselves. The recording industry may finally be making some serious strides to win consumers over by removing the shackles of DRM, but its continued insinuations that its customers are thieves threatens to disperse any build-up of goodwill among its customers.
Signed by: 
