adamwarrock:

Adam WarRock “Shake” (free download)

giphy

So I made this song, and I should probably credit my friend Carey for introducing me to “Shake It Off” one morning in her office, with her yelling at me “You should make a rap song out of this!” She planted the seed in my head, that later became this song. And I have to say, I’m pretty proud of it. I have a tradition of taking famous pop songs and making raps out of them, so I guess it was only a matter of time before I took this song and flipped it (and for the record, I have always loved this song since that first morning in Carey’s office, I ain’t embarrassed. It’s a great pop song). So here’s a good way to get your week off and popping, or something.

alg-jerry-lewis-jpg

Don’t forget, my 24 Hour Rap-A-Thon is still happening October 18! For 24 hours straight, I will write, record and post music, and you can pledge a per song amount or lump sum donation by emailing rapathon@gmail.com! A portion of all proceeds go to RAINN.org, to fight sexual violence and abuse. Support indie music, support a good cause, tune in and watch me make a ton of music from scratch!

tracert -h 100 216.81.59.173

best-of-memes:

When I find the perfect rock on the ground to add to my rock collection

image

(via gargoylesstandingonsuperheroes)

Hyrule Warriors is fun, I don’t see any Error yet though.

skipthestigma:

ktbakerstreet:

#what u say about my box

I LOVE HER SHE IS SO UNIMPRESSED BY THE DOCTOR AND HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND HOW

(via themultipleman)

Of all the songs to be stuck in my head right now, why is it “Trapped In The Drive-Thru” by Weird Al. It’s not really catchy, and it’s an almost 11 min song.

whylurr:

unclewhisky:

theshadiertwin:

unclewhisky:

vastderp-placeholder:

poppunk-notcollars:

iamtheralrus:

holy shit.

For the win

THIS IS MY PHILOSOPHY.

I kinda doubt this is a real Seuss quote, but I like the idea behind it nevertheless.

It’s a real Seuss quote.

…huh! I stand corrected.

whylurr:

unclewhisky:

theshadiertwin:

unclewhisky:

vastderp-placeholder:

poppunk-notcollars:

iamtheralrus:

holy shit.

For the win

THIS IS MY PHILOSOPHY.

I kinda doubt this is a real Seuss quote, but I like the idea behind it nevertheless.

It’s a real Seuss quote.

…huh! I stand corrected.

(via themultipleman)

The fact that you can attribute a cause to your bigotry doesn’t make you any less bigoted. It might buy you some sympathy points, but those dry up fast in my ledger if you don’t set yourself straight once the heat wears off. — SF
kaosubaloo:

bertoelcon:

dbpony:

thesochillnetwork:

Youtube, you had one job

Perfect example of Youtube’s utterly broken copyright system.

Don’t blame Youtube for following a dumb law.

The DMCA is certainly awful, but the youtube Content ID System does not follow it. The Content ID system is designed to take things done *before* any sort of legal issue comes into play and consequently can be and frequently is used for abuse. It is trivial to use it to take down legal content of which you disprove, which being legal would obviously not be possible through actual use of the previously mentioned law. Furthermore, the content ID system is automoated. Not only is that why something like the above above can happen, but it also explicitly goes against the intent of the DMCA, which specifically notes that a human factor is required on the part of a company or individual who is issuing a DMCA takedown.
In other words, while the DMCA may be responsible for Youtubes content ID system, it is most certainly NOT responsible for the quality of that system.

"Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)]."
This basically means you can’t have ads on videos at all. Ads on videos is how Youtube operates and monetizes. That all means that they can be liable in court.
Really more people need to drag this stuff in to court for the small clauses that, “A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)]. A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].”

kaosubaloo:

bertoelcon:

dbpony:

thesochillnetwork:

Youtube, you had one job

Perfect example of Youtube’s utterly broken copyright system.

Don’t blame Youtube for following a dumb law.

The DMCA is certainly awful, but the youtube Content ID System does not follow it. The Content ID system is designed to take things done *before* any sort of legal issue comes into play and consequently can be and frequently is used for abuse. It is trivial to use it to take down legal content of which you disprove, which being legal would obviously not be possible through actual use of the previously mentioned law. Furthermore, the content ID system is automoated. Not only is that why something like the above above can happen, but it also explicitly goes against the intent of the DMCA, which specifically notes that a human factor is required on the part of a company or individual who is issuing a DMCA takedown.

In other words, while the DMCA may be responsible for Youtubes content ID system, it is most certainly NOT responsible for the quality of that system.

"Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)]."

This basically means you can’t have ads on videos at all. Ads on videos is how Youtube operates and monetizes. That all means that they can be liable in court.

Really more people need to drag this stuff in to court for the small clauses that, “A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)]. A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].”