Google Reader Shared Post - Source URL Blog

via The Adventures of Accordion Guy in the 21st Century

Google Reader Shared Post - Source URL Top stories from Times Online

A gang of thieves in Poland has stolen the infamous wrought iron sign announcing that “work sets you free” that spans the main gate of the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Google Reader Shared Post - Source URL Sheldon (R) Comic Strip: Daily webcomic by Dave Kellett

Jump to a Random Strip in the Archives! | Get Sheldon Books 'n Shirts | Buy This Original Art | Forum Chat | Archives | E-mail Dave

Google Reader Shared Post - Source URL The Consumerist

Shared by AdamFort
There is WAY to much Bacon

Bacon: it makes the recession taste better. That's our theory, anyway, after reading an article on Burgerbusiness.com with original research showing that menu items containing bacon at all restaurants are up 26.5% since 2005.

The biggest increase in bacon-laden menu items has come at full-service restaurants, not fast-food outlets.

Certainly burgers have contributed to the bacon tsunami. Mintel finds that the number of bacon-topped burgers at all 580 restaurants in its Menu Insights database soared from 424 in 2005 to 576 in 2009, a 35.8% increase. At QSRs, the increase has been a Whoppering 32.9%, although that’s a bit less than for all restaurants.

If the biggest increase is not at QSRs, where is the bacon bulge coming from? Look at some recent menu revisions by full-service chains and the numbers are understandable. Yes, the Sassy Pepper Jack Burger added by the Perkins Restaurant & Bakery chain has bacon, but so too do its new Chicken & Spinach and Honey Mustard Chicken Crunch salads as well as its Smoked Bacon & Ham Omelette. O’Charley’s Prime Rib Pasta would seem to have proteins covered, but there’s bacon added. Applebee’s new BBQ Chicken Salad and Ruby Tuesday’s Club House Salad have bacon, as do Chili’s new Classic Chicken Tacos Texas Cheese Fries. Bacon’s everywhere.

Is there such a thing as too much bacon...or maybe just too much sodium?

Data Confirm Sharp Increase in Bacon on Burgers and More [Burger Business]

Google Reader Shared Post - Source URL Bits & Pieces

Click to enlarge

 via

Google Reader Shared Post - Source URL Dilbert Daily Strip

Google Reader Shared Post - Source URL Dilbert Daily Strip

Shared by AdamFort
If only....

Google Reader Shared Post - Source URL Techdirt

We've discussed numerous court cases where modern technology has caused significant procedural problems from "the old ways" of doing things. CitMediaLaw points us to a story that includes two more cases, both in Maryland. In one, lawyers are seeking a new trial because some of the jurors became Facebook "friends" during the trial. This follows on the news that Florida is forbidding judges from friending lawyers on social networking sites, but is it reasonable to prevent jurors from friending each other? For many Facebook users, "friending" people you meet is quite natural and something you do almost immediately upon meeting someone new. So it should be no surprise that some jurors would choose to quickly friend each other. It's hard to see how that would make the results of the jury verdict suspect, however.

The second case involved jurors using Wikipedia to look up some terms. This is hardly a new concept. Some judges these days are specifically warning jurors not to use the internet to look up anything related to a case, but for a generation of folks who consider internet research to be an adjunct part of the thinking process, it's not hard to recognize why many would ignore this, and not think they're doing anything wrong (and they might have a good argument). The real question is whether or not there are reasonable ways to change the way the jury system works to allow for what many people consider perfectly natural: doing additional research on their own. For those who are comfortable with the old system, this may seem like a horrific idea (and yes, we all understand the reasons why the current system wants to limit things to just what's said in the courtroom). However, at some point the system may need to recognize that an artificial constraint on learning about the details of the case may not actually be the best system.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Google Reader Shared Post - Source URL mental_floss Blog

Most people are familiar with the Chanukah menorah’s nine branches—one for each night, plus the tall, center branch for the shamash (literally “the attendant”). But have you ever wondered why these menorahs don’t look the same as the famous menorah on the Arch of Titus in Rome, or like the one on the official emblem of the State of Israel? Those menorahs, which only have seven branches—three on each side, with one tall, straight branch in the center—are meant to symbolize the burning bush as seen by Moses and described in Exodus. The seven-branched menorah stood in the Holy Temple and was constructed according to laws put forth in the Torah.
But why seven branches in the first place? Well, there are many theories to explain this. The most popular is that the shape is said to be inspired by the moriah, a plant that typically has seven branches, grows in the Middle East, and has been around since the time of Moses.
A second theory suggests that the seven branches represent the seven heavenly bodies known during antiquity: the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The Jewish historian Josephus alludes to this in the Third Book of his Antiquities of the Jews: “…and as to the seven lamps upon the candlesticks, they referred to the course of the planets, of which that is the number…”
Whatever the reason, the seven-branched “original” menorah should not be confused with the nine-branched Chanukah menorah. For this reason, the latter is often called a chanukiyah, a word coined by the wife of Eliezer Ben Yehuda, the man credited with reviving the Hebrew language at the end of the 19th century. It’s especially important not to confuse the two if you plan on purchasing a new menorah this Chanukah—not so much for fear of breaking a law in the Torah, but more out of fear of the look on children’s faces when they discover they’ve been short-changed by two days.

Google Reader Shared Post - Source URL Real Life Comics

Home | Archive | Forums | Real Life Store | E-Mail | Deutsch