I'll Tell You What's Not In the Box: Any Part of Andy Samberg

I heretofore declare this blog mostly defunct!

Is it possible that this declaratory post de-defuncts this blog? Is it, in fact, made funct? Is funct a word? If not, why?

Maybe, because of the newfound functness of this blog, I'll have to start posting again.

. . . but I wouldn't bet on it.

If you're looking for Iason's more current online projects/presence/whatnot, you may wish to purview the following:
633k.eliaser.com (with more fun projects to come)
My Facebook Profile (for some reason, I'm finding this relatively enjoyable. I don't even understand why.)

Or, if you'd like, you may wish to answer the following query:

Extra points if you can identify all three references.

Yarr!

That's it. That's all I have to say, after two months of silence. Yarr.

A Panda is NOT a Fixed Medium of Expression

I am a card-carrying member of the Zoological Society of San Diego. I love the Zoo and the Wild Animal Park, I love to hang out and watch the animals, and I love what the Zoological Society's missions and methods are. But when I was recently at the zoo, I noticed this sign posted in the Panda area. Sorry, I mean the "Giant Panda Research Station."

WTF??!?!!
Let's be clear: a Giant Panda is not protectable intellectual property. An animal is not copyrightable, because it is not a fixed medium of expression. Similarly, a Panda cannot be trademarked, nor is it patentable, nor is it a trade secret. A picture of a Panda, a description of a Panda, yes. But an actual Panda? No way. If a Panda were just walking down the street, I could take a picture of it, and slap it all over whatever commercial materials I wanted. No matter who it belonged to. I think it might be fun to see the Zoo try to forward an appropriation of likeness argument on behalf of the Panda, but I'm pretty sure that only works on people. -grin- So how on earth can the Zoo assert this right? Did they just make it up?

It probably has something to do with this nonsense in tiny print, that I just now noticed, on the back of my membership card:

Member agrees not to commercially use any photography or reproduction in any form taken during any visits to the Parks . . .

I assume the same thing is on the back of the tickets. You see a lot of this, what I'm going to call "ticketwrap" nonsense about, and I think it's completely unbinding. I signed nothing, I made, nor contemplated, nor was aware of, any such agreement. I'm sure the zoo would argue that I should have been aware of such a thing, and that I submitted to it by entering the zoo. Baloney. I made no agreement, and there was no contract. In any sense of the term. See Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 161 A.2d 69. "It is not enough merely to show the form of a contract; it must appear also that the agreement was understandingly made." See also Kravitz v. Parking Service Co., 29 Ala. App. 523. I'm sure I could find more, better authority, but who's got the time for that? I'll wait until they sue me. Why would they sue me, you ask? For this, mayhaps:

So, go, buy your Panda Tee, which, and let me be perfectly clear on this point, is a reproduction of a photograph that I took at the San Diego Zoo, that I am using for commercial purposes. Which I believe I am legally entitled to do. So, bring it, Zoological Society.

Federal Court: "Fuck You, F.C.C."

Link. (Free Login Required.)

Finally, somebody gives the what-for to those power-hungry unconstitutes at the F.C.C. I've long been concerned about what the surprising, sudden, unprecedented imposition of fines for "fleeting expletives." The F.C.C. and the courts have said for decades that context matters, and all of the sudden these new knuckleheads throw all of that out of the window and start dinging for every possible "infraction" that they perceive.

I love the dissent: "The commission’s position is not irrational; it is not arbitrary and capricious." Sure, even if I give you rational and unarbitrary (which I don't), let's just ignore that it was unconstitutional. We should never forget that the F.C.C.'s entire purpose for existence is to abridge speech. I'm not saying that what they do isn't important, I don't want chaos on the airwaves (most days), but their obligations and power should be drawn as narrowly as friggin' possible. Because, and I'm not saying that the Founding Fathers listed their amendments in order of importance, but the first one is the best.

Skill City!

Just a quick plug: you should be playing Skill City. It's got a pile of your favorite puzzle games, plus one you've never seen before, with the promise of much more forthcoming. And really, it's all very shinily packaged together. I'm still groovin' on the music, in particular.

I don't just insert this plug because I want to support the developer, who is a buddy, but because I'm there, and I want the unique opportunity to kick your everloving ass at the puzzle game of your choosing.

So, bring it, already. Username: Iason.

Media Review: The Manikin

Medium: Novel
Author: Joanna Scott
Original Publication: 1996

Scott's prose has never ceased to captivate me in the past, and The Manikin was no exception. Her writing is haunting; somehow distant and cool while at the same time intensely personal and touching. Not a tremendous amount happens in the book, but I was never bored, and didn't have any trouble turning the pages. The titular "Manikin" refers not to a store window mannequin, but the frame around which an animal's skin is mounted in taxidermy, and the house which is both the setting and the main character of the book. In this, as in her other novels, Scott employs an amazing literary device the likes of which I've not really seen anywhere else. She'll paint you a picture of the scene in tremendous detail, such that you know what the room smells like and precisely where everyone is positioned, and only once you have this incredibly clear picture of the setting does she allow the action begin. You can see her crafting a picture in your mind, and then shouting "action," and letting the various characters play their parts. Often, in these descriptions, she uses the second person to wonderful effect. Upon our meeting in 1999, she called this her "tour guide voice," and passed it off as a cheap narrative trick, but I think it's a phenomenal method of laying the scene out before the reader. Other readers might find The Manikin to be uneventful and depressing, but I relished in the slow, creeping, lavish Gothic-ness of it.

"Take A Deep Breath" is Definitely the Best Advice I've Received All Day

I'm sorry posting has been sporadic, to say the least. I'm just not sure what the focus the TMA should be now. For that matter, I'm not really sure what the focus of Iason's life is, either. I guess I could complain about the trials and tribulations of a contract attorney, but I could never match of to the horrors faced regularly in New York. Or I could moan and groan about how hard looking for work is, but, so what else is new? Not even I want to read about that. Nor do I really follow any tiny aspect of the news closely enough to warrant some crazy little niche blog. Vanity blog? Yeah, that's more or less what this has been, but I'm just not that interested in that right now.

So, pardon me while a reconfigure a) my life, and b) this blog. In that order.

But the real reason I'm blogging is to tell y'all that I'm a Skyper, now. I know I am, once again, four years behind the times, but I love it, and I want you to call me on it. I got the cheap-ass SkypeIn thingey, so I actually have a number, too: 858-926-5529 (which, coincidentally, translates nicely into 858-WANK-LAW. Nice, hunh?)




Anyway, I thought you should know.

Iason, Nay, The World, Needs Your Help

I'm in the process of crafting a presentation on how people use PowerPoint (and other "slideware" programs) poorly. Or, better stated, how the abominable mis-use of PowerPoint leads to wretched presentations and lectures. Or, how PowerPoint is the downfall of modern society.

If you're interested, I need your help. I'd love to hear your pet peeves and horror stories, as well as any successes you've seen.

And, yes, I have consumed/am in the process of consuming the Tufte and The Most Famous PP Presentation, Ever.

Email me. Thanks in advance, gang.

Con.

Dearest geeky friends of mine:

We now live in what is, for one week every year, indisputably the geekiest town in the world. I speak of no other than The Con (no, not that one, this one!)

Mark your calendars, buy your tickets, and inform your employers. This year, it's July 26-29. As you may well know, hotels rooms during this week are a) ridiculously expensive, and b) nearly impossible to find. That is why we are opening our modest home to everybody we know who cares to spend the week geeking out. We can't promise you a bed, but we can promise you a few feet of floor for nothing more than the shared cost of take-out and beer.

So, if you know us personally, come for six days or one. Read comic books, play games, and heck, maybe we'll even go to the beach. RSVP now or just show up at our door. It shall be a momentous event. Momentous. See you in July.

Love and Kisses,
Iason & The M

Itsy-Bitsy Yellow With Polka Dots Bikini?

So, I'm more-or-less employed, finally. I got sick of spinning my wheels at home in front of the computer (no offense, computer), so I went to my employment agency and I asked for anything. So, I'm the receptionist for an certain not-for-profit local agency that, while it isn't explicitly in the business of practicing law, is swarming with lawyers nevertheless. Hopefully, all this face-time will lead to something bigger and better. Reception work (receiving? receptioning? receptionizing?) ain't lawyerin', but it gives me a reason to put a tie on in the morning.

So, have you seen this Yoplait commercial? You know, the one where there's this woman eating yogurt in various pre-summer seasons, and there's a yellow bikini with red polka dots hanging on the wall, and "Itsy-Bitsy, Teeny-Weenie, Yellow Polka Dot Bikini" plays cheerily in the background? You know the one I mean? It seems to me that that commercial is wrong, is it not? I mean, the bikini pictured is decidedly not a yellow polka dot bikini, in my mind. It is a red polka dot bikini, with a yellow background. Or, in the alternative, a yellow bikini with polka dots. Does "yellow" describe "bikini" or "polka dots"? Is this yet another case of my worldview being dramatically different than the rest of the human population? Discuss.

While you're at it, answer me this: is "polka dot" supposed to be hyphenated? Polka dot. Polka-dot. Hmm. Ponderance of ponderances.