WebProNews

Tag: stupid

  • Selfie In Front Of A Train? That’s A Paddlin’

    It was a delightful afternoon, Michael thought.

    Taking selfies with equipment he bought.

    So he stood by a train,

    which caused him some pain.

    “My face did the boot it did caught.”

    Enter Doofus McGee, AKA Jared Michael. In the YouTube video you see above, in the description box, Michael typed: “I tried to take a selfie while a train passed a “safe” distance behind. I guess I was still too close and got kicked in the head”

    The video is 10 seconds long, currently stands at 1,956,410 views, and has the whole internet laughing and pointing at poor Mr. Michael; he was only trying to capture some footage of his best Jaden Smith impression and Bieber haircut. What could go wrong? A conductor yelling “Hey!” and the realization that he needs to explain to the potential viewer (he uploaded the video, after all) “Wow, that guy kicked me in the head! I think I got that on film.”

    You did get that on film, and the conductor certainly kicked you in the head. Welcome to the new age, the new age, welcome to the new age, the new age.

    A young brooding Michael awaits his destiny for instant internet fame.

    A flirtatious foot via dirty conductor caresses the gentle smooth cheek of pure child innocence.

    Michael’s face is warped, yet, it appears he hasn’t registered being kicked in the face.

    Showing his true form, Michael turns into Beavis.

    The Bieber hair cut dances as the body collapses.

    Almost as if it’s self aware, Michael’s hair branches out in an attempt to attack the conductor, but fails.

    Michael is down for the count, what shame this could bring if anyone knew.

    Michael ponders the cruelty of the world… only to go home later and upload the footage.

    Multiple YouTube users have offered their perspective on the whole deal.

    User John Doe suggested in order to purge the “selfie generation”, we need another world war:

    SupaFlyFatGuy859, with a ton of validating virtual thumbs up (26, to be exact), suggested an award for the young man:

    The conductor’s kick, according to tvwears, saved the boy’s life:

    It almost seems like a movie or gimmicky viral marketing because you think, by itself, “How can people really be this stupid?” only to be disappointed when God whispers into your ear at night, saying: “Youth.”

    I think he’s a good kid.

    Images via YouTube

  • Google Is Trying to Trademark the Word ‘Glass’, Currently Having Some Issues

    Google is attempting (and currently failing) to trademark the word ‘Glass’, in reference to their Google Glass wearable tech. Most of you will probably find joy in half of that statement. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is currently holding up their application for the trademark, citing a couple of main objections. “That’s effing stupid” not being one of them, unfortunately.

    From The Wall Street Journal:

    In a letter to the company last fall, a trademark examiner raised two main objections. One concern was that the trademark was too similar to other existing or pending computer software trademarks that contain the word “glass,” creating a risk of consumer confusion.

    The examiner also suggested that “Glass” — even with its distinctive formatting — is “merely descriptive.” Words that simply describe a product don’t have trademark protection under federal law — “absent a showing of acquired distinctiveness.” For example, a company that makes salsa couldn’t trademark the term “spicy sauce.”

    Basically, the USPTO is telling Google that ‘Glass’ isn’t enough of a thing on its own to merit a trademark–it’s just descriptive of the Google Glass device. Google can make the logo look as futuristic as they want, but at least right now, the USPTO isn’t buying that ‘Glass’ should be Google’s.

    Recently, Google’s lawyers responded to the USPTO, in a 1,928 page letter. Before you say “holy hell, there’s no way there’s that much to say about why ‘Glass’ should be trademarked,” you’re absolutely right. According to the WSJ, the vast majority (about 1,900 pages) are just examples of articles about Google Glass.

    Google’s goal here, obviously, is to bury the USPTO’s first objection, that the trademark would create consumer confusion. Google is basically saying “look, everyone in the world already associates ‘Glass’ with our product.”

    Of course, Google could just call it ‘Google Glass’, because they already have that one on lockdown. Apparently, it has to be just ‘Glass’. No word on whether or not Google is trying for the TM on ‘Glasshole.’ Might wanna lock that one up too.

    As of right now, Google lists ‘Glass’ as one of their trademarks.

    I don’t want to misplace all of my frustration. Let’s throw some at the patent system in general. Google is just doing what all companies do–cover all of their bases. It’s a predatory world out there, and Google is just doing what companies have to do these days. That doesn’t make the whole thing any less stupid, mind you, but there you go.

    On the other hand, trademarking (or attempting to trademark) works like ‘Glass’, ‘Face’, ‘Book’, and even ‘Apple’ is some weak shit. It’s infuriating, in fact. What do you think?

    Image via Robert Scoble, Google+

  • George Zimmerman: “Artistic” Copyright Infringer?

    In a perfect world, someone fortunate enough to be acquitted of gunning down an unarmed teen and who has charges dropped after apparently threatening his girlfriend with a rifle would fade into obscurity, never to be either heard from or about ever again. But as with Casey Anthony, Florida continues to deliver in the form of George Zimmerman. Zimmerman, who has turned his escape from the judicial system into an opportunity to express himself as an artist.

    George Zimmerman recently sold artwork for over $100,000. A boon to Zimmerman, who due to his notoriety seems to be having a bit of trouble finding anyone willing to hire him.

    Jayne Weintraub, Zimmerman’s attorney, told The Associated Press that Zimmerman created the artwork all by himself and that he’s “utilizing his talent to make some money.”

    Unfortunately, “talent” in this case may turn out to be just another way of saying, “he totally plagiarized it”.

    It has been noted that the six figure painting bears a remarkable resemblance to a Stockphoto image. Now, here’s where it gets hilarious: The image that it’s clear to see he borrowed from is copyrighted. Compounded with the fact that he gave no credit whatsoever for his hand-drawn art, it’s possible that Zimmerman may be opening himself up to a potential lawsuit if the owner of that image decides to pursue the matter in court.

    Which brings us to Zimmerman’s latest masterpiece, which was shared by his brother Robert Zimmerman Jr. Wednesday via Twitter.

    The artwork, titled “Angie”, features special prosecutor Angela Corey, who failed to convict Zimmerman. She is shown with her fingers touching while saying, “I have this much respect for the American judicial system”. Of course artistic interpretation being so flexible, maybe we’re free to ponder whether he’s speaking about the prosecutor or himself.

    Mind. Blown.

    In any case, once again we’re supposed to presume that he totally drew this himself and didn’t borrow inspiration from a copyrighted photo whatsoever.

    Fool me once, etc., etc.

    Well, I’m sure Rick Wilson won’t mind losing out on thousands of dollars as Zimmerman continues to profit from images that he didn’t actually think up himself.

    Now, of course it’s not unheard of for artists to use existing places and images as inspiration (and own up to this fact while giving the appopriate credit, and maybe paying out a percentage of the profit where relevant…). However, when you’re NOTORIOUS, you could literally fart on a piece of canvas and someone will buy your “art” just to say they own it.

    Why use copyrighted images that could open you up to a lawsuit you cannot afford to fight later on because you’re totally broke?

    Image via Twitter

  • Snorting Smarties: The New Dumb Thing For Kids To Do

    Snorting Smarties: The New Dumb Thing For Kids To Do

    It seems with every generation with too much time on its hands, some of them are going to think of some not-so bright ways to spend their time.

    They plank.

    They burn themselves with salt and ice. (No seriously.)

    And now we have middle schoolers…snorting Smarties.

    Wait, what?!

    Why would kids be trying to smoke/snort a crunched up version of sugary candy? Consensus is that they are trying to imitate people who do actual drugs such as cocaine. Compare it to way back in the day when there was cigarette candy to imitate the smoking of actual cigarettes.

    However, there is a danger to this seemingly goofy trend that makes it a little less goofy. The way Smarties are made, when crunched up, the pieces can be sharp, almost like tiny pieces of glass. There is a real risk of cutting the inside of your nose.

    Leftover sugar can result in infections or even worse: Maggots. Dr. Oren Friedman, a Mayo Clinic nose specialist, has stated that the sugary residue left behind could lead maggots to crawl up your nose to feed on it. Ew! Is that the equivalent of sleeping with your mouth open may draw spiders? A better question is what sane person would risk finding out?

    There is also the possibility of an allergic reaction of seriously irritating the lungs.

    Look, we’ve all been dumb kids at some point. You’re looking at someone who actually downed a cup of dish detergent because she mistook it for her fruit drink because she didn’t look at what she was drinking. And it was a terrible experience. But then it was over and I knew better.

    Kids, I know you’re bored and I know you want to fit in with other idiotic kids, but there comes a time when you have to stop and take a look at yourself and what it is you are doing.

    …You’re snorting candy. If you can’t find anything less ridiculous to do with your time, you’re not trying hard enough.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • #Riccing Is Probably Going to Get Someone Killed, Or at the Very Least Stuck Somewhere

    Say what you want about Tebowing, but at least it never involved shoving yourself in a clothes dryer.

    It looks like there’s a new selfie trend brewing thanks to actress Christina Ricci and her tiny frame. It’s called #Riccing, and it all started when Ricci took to Twitter to show that “being small does have its benefits.”

    And so, #Riccing is born. All you have to do is squeeze yourself into a small space – it’s like a less athletic, more claustrophobic planking.

    It’s catching on –

    Even celebrities are getting into it:

    Oh, Twitter.

    Image via Christina Ricci, Twitter

  • 5 Doors That Sound Like Other Things

    5 Doors That Sound Like Other Things

    Because it’s Friday and because why not, below are some YouTube clips of doors (of all kinds) that sound like other things. Each artistic door below perfectly (debatable) impersonates something or someone from the world of pop culture. We’ve got a famous jazz artist, a video game character, a popular film character, and more.

    Everyone loves impressions, right?

    Check them out below:

    This cabinet door sounds exactly like Chewbacca:

    This door does it’s best to sample Miles Davis’ Bitches Brew:

    This door sounds just like a Reaper (or a Tripod from War of the Worlds, depending on who you ask):

    This door sounds like a whining puppy…at least to this guy’s dog:

    Here’s another door that sounds exactly like Chewbacca:

    [h/t reddit]

  • Steve Jobs To Receive Made-Up Grammy

    Record of the Year. Song of the Year. Best New Artist. Even Best Spoken Word or Comedy. These are Grammy categories worthy of recognition because, at least in some respect, they are involved in the recording process. We listen to the stuff made by people involved in these projects and then, sometimes, these people are rewarded for their efforts with a shiny gold statue. And at least for a few people who like music, the bloated self-aggrandizing ritual of who gets a Grammy is still important. All in all, a pretty good system.

    Sometimes, when the Grammys want to honor someone who was working behind the scenes of music production, they’ll award them a Trustees Award. For those not in the know, the Recording Academy describes the Trustee Award as a prize reserved for “individuals who, during their careers in music, have made significant contributions, other than performance, to the field of recording.” Careers in music. Producers, studio musicians, these are people I think of when I contemplate this award. Good to recognize their contributions, I suppose. Adds some relevance to the Grammys. Gotcha.

    Apparently uncomfortable with the Grammys’ currently sclerotic state, the Recording Academy will attempt to liven things up for the forth-coming awards show albeit poorly and confusingly. This year’s award ceremony, which is scheduled to come vomiting out of your TV screen on February 11, 2012, will blur the distinction of exactly what is considered “significant contributions to the field of recording” music because they’re posthumously awarding the Trustees Award to the Pope of Silicon Valley, Steve Jobs.

    Wait, what?

    From the Recording Academy’s press release:

    As former CEO and co-founder of Apple, Steve Jobs helped create products and technology that transformed the way we consume music, TV, movies, and books. A creative visionary, Jobs’ innovations such as the iPod and its counterpart, the online iTunes store, revolutionized the industry and how music was distributed and purchased. In 2002 Apple Computer Inc. was a recipient of a Technical GRAMMY Award for contributions of outstanding technical significance to the recording field. The company continues to lead the way with new technology and in-demand products such as the iPhone and iPad.

    I’m still confused. So because he introduced a popular device that is used to listen to music or spoken word whatevers he gets a Grammy? Did Andreas Pavel, the man who gave us the Walkman, get a Grammy for his revolutionary contribution to making music portable? You get two seconds to guess. Time’s up. Answer: No.

    Awarding a lukewarm Grammy to Steve Jobs is shameless and opportunistic. If they really wanted to give him an award with any meaning, the Recording Academy could’ve done this after everybody realized the iPod was a pretty big deal. Like, five or six years ago. They shouldn’t even be giving him an award at all, but that’s beside the point. But whatever – it’s the Grammys’ show and they’ll cry if they want to. However, since the Grammys are bending their rules for Saint Jobs to receive an award, maybe his iGrammy will look a little like this.