That's really quite amazing!

I still find the name "Please Island" hilarious. It's almost as if the people who named it weren't even aware there was a pornography industry.

You said it, SIRDOOK. Frankly, I never understood the brouhaha over surveilling women's dressing rooms. Shoplifting is a serious economic problem and our economy is in bad shape. It's a proven fact that women like to shop. Therefore, women have caused our economic woes by shoplifting and should be surveilled in the dressing room. Cries of abuse from liberals amount to endorsements of thieves.

I was under the impression that the internet is for porn.

I put plants up. Not quite as DIY as mentioned above: these are from Ikea!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/justonpayne/2607494138/sizes/m/

So is legalizing pot still considered a third rail in politics? I think it probably is, but I guess that with all this real issue stuff going on, I haven't stopped to consider what society's reaction would be to a politician who proposed dropping this silly ban.

Lovely!

If today's crop of posts showed us one thing, Mark, Xeni, and David really get BoingBoing's mission statement.

Ray Comfort!!!!

If you poke around http://www.wayofthemaster.com/ for a while, you'll find a bunch of amazing Ray Comfort clips, including one where he claims to have wrestled an alligator.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't strike me as an egregious use of power. Many businesses have person aesthetic codes; that's particularly the case in the service industry where employees directly represent the company's brand. If management reasonably believed that a woman with a shaved head might drive away business, then that's a reasonable professional consequence of a personal action.

Sometimes I feel like we, the Bush-hating liberals, forget that it isn't always unjust if an authority figure imposes systems that affect aspects of one's personal life. I hate wire tapping and Kyoto-bucking as much as the next reader, but I can understand why a manager wouldn't want customers scared away.

Thank you, BEANOLINI! I spent a few minutes poking around the bestseller list but didn't think to look in the Children's Books section. I wasn't even going to ask for fear of the BOD (Bureau Of Disemvoweling), so cheers.

That's a good point, Cory, and one that I oddly haven't heard in the mainstream or podcasting media. The founding fathers were tremendously worried about attacks on our soil and wrote the constitution as they did. I really think this should become a new talking point for the left.

Incidentally, I'm all for not lionizing the founding fathers as omniscient psychics whose words can be bent to whatever political cause is at stake. Politicians have found ideal puppets in the founding fathers in that they have credibility and can be made to say anything.

Regarding chimps and fake leopard:

The initial overdub makes it sound like we're watching a promotional piece for a lever manufacturer.

Neat video.

STRATOJOE:

Nay, nay! That cord is not encased in plastic; it's a live, rusted wire pumping 660 volts. This lamp is so punk it'll electrocute anyone silly enough to unplug it.

#31 MINAMISAN: Well said. It'd be lovely if it swung a bit farther back in the direction of Mark/Xeni. A lot of days, I feel like I'm here by habit alone as I wade through posts and the day's crop of copyright rants.

I find Falk's contention interesting. I'm not sure if Cory's response is accurate. Speaking directly to the restrictions:

"You are free to copy, display, distribute this work for non-commercial purposes only."

puts BoingBoing in violation. The ads on this site are paid on a CPM (cost per thousand impressions) basis. These impressions are contracted on a total-buy basis, meaning that an advertiser books a set number of impressions. Therefore, anyone viewing this page uses contracted impressions, fulfilling the advertiser's contract with BoingBoing, and getting BoingBoing (or, to be precise, Federated Media) one step closer to being able to invoice the advertiser.

In that sense, this is absolutely a commercial website and puts this video in violation of the expressed terms.

Now let's take the second clause:

No commercial websites or televisions are allowed to display this film without the author's permission.

We don't know enough information to address this. The author's authorization almost certainly trumps the first clause of the license. Therefore, if the author gave expressed permission to use this film on this site, BoingBoing has done nothing wrong.

Perhaps Cory can tell us if they contacted the author.

Regarding #6:

Yeah, we all have the NYT bookmarked. The story is right on their front page. What's with the bait and switch on Boing Boing?

You've uncovered an expansive conspiracy to trick readers into thinking BoingBoing.net is Times.com! I smell a Pulizter.

Where's Data?

Although, in fairness, Data's an android.

Well put, Xeni. There's a certain irony when people use one of the most tired e-complaints when complaining about tired e-material.

Given the frequency with which sex-related scandals emerge, I think we should rethink our conception of "deviant."

While I can understand any online community's need for moderation, something about this overview rubbed me as "un-BoingBoing." It's difficult to pinpoint what it was, exactly, because a list of rules is always helpful when there's going to be enforcement and is certainly not incongruous with BoingBoing's content. Perhaps it was this moderator's tone and argument structure, which was closer to what I'd expect from a Fox News hawk than a BoingBoing writer.

It's not like it makes a difference to me - I've never left a comment before despite my submitting many-an-unpublished link to the site! I'll keep reading and enjoying BB many times per day.