law

More like "Pancaking Bad," am I right? Woooo, I think I just won blogging!

[via EatLiver]

To be fair, most craft books don't have a "So You're A Convict Now" section.

[via The Verge]

Slow court day.

[via Izismile]

Beef as in a grudge with an Alabama law firm that filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that the "beef" Taco Bell puts into their ever-expanding menu items can't be called "beef" at all.

As the LA Times points out, "just 35 percent of the taco filling was a solid, and just 15 percent overall was protein, said [an] attorney" associated with the case.  The firm claims this doesn't confirm to the USDA definition of beef.

Technically, on the packaging it's shipped in (obtained by Gizmodo), it's called "Taco Meat Filling."  But that's not stated on the menu.

Gizmodo broke down all of the ingredients that follow "beef" on the "meat filling's" list:

"Water, isolated oat product, salt, chili pepper, onion powder, tomato powder, oats (wheat), soy lecithin, sugar, spices, maltodextrin (a polysaccharide that is absorbed as glucose), soybean oil (anti-dusting agent), garlic powder, autolyzed yeast extract, citric acid, caramel color, cocoa powder, silicon dioxide (anti-caking agent), natural flavors, yeast, modified corn starch, natural smoke flavor, salt, sodium phosphate, less than 2% of beef broth, potassium phosphate, and potassium lactate."

Alright, sure.  But did anyone ever really walk into a Taco Bell and order anything on the menu expecting they were getting 100% grade A meat?  Just be happy they ground it up enough that you can't taste the tendons or get a bone lodged in your throat.

35% beef per taco sounds dead-on to me.  That explains why you have to eat at least three of them before you feel like you've eaten 100% of anything.

And why this focus on beef?  I'm far more suspect of what Taco Bell tries to pass off as "steak."  Or why not a class-action suit from Mexicans for what Taco Bell tries to pass off as a Chalupa?

Let's cut Taco Bell some slack.  35% cut beef is still probably better than most Mexican cocaine shipments and without any of the violence.  To me, that's progress.

As of January, being caught with an ounce or less of pot will result in a $100 fine and no jail time, thanks to a bill signed last week by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Most Californians have been mellowly rejoicing.

But not Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com. He denounced the bill saying it invites youth to become addicted "because there's not much hassle and no public stigma and no rehab if they?re caught."

Governor Schwarzenegger (likely) replied, "Chill out, dickwad."

Earlier today, Mashable filed a report on "Facebook and MySpace Booting Sex Offenders in Droves."

From the post:

"As a result of new laws being passed around the country, several local governments now also play a role in keeping predators off the likes of Facebook and MySpace.

Today, New York state reports that a registry they set up that requires convinced sex offenders to provide social networking details to the state has resulted in 3,500 people losing their Facebook and MySpace accounts."

This seems like a horrible idea!

We want to keep sex offenders on their computers.  Because every minute they are updating their statuses and browsing pictures of their friends is a minute they aren't out in the real world molesting your children.

Think about it.

This video of a few Brits splashing some kids in their car went minorly viral over the past few days, culminating in Monday's news that this guy might actually get prosecuted for "inconsiderate driving." People complained to the police after seeing the video online.

"Inconsiderate" doesn't seem accurate to me. An inconsiderate person does this sort of thing by accident. This guy's done a great deal of "considering." He knows exactly what he's doing. He's videotaping it. He's being so thoughtful that he's actually narrating his considerations. And he was very considerate by putting it on YouTube for all of us to enjoy.

[via Arbroath]

Britain's High Court ordered the first ever 'writ to be served' on Twitter yesterday to an anonymous tweeter who'd been impersonating someone on the site. I had to look up "writ to be served" because I tend to stay out of legal trouble and impersonating others, but in layman's terms it has something to do with telling someone to knock something off that they're doing.

Does this mean I can get served just by checking my @replies?

I must be in the clear- all I'm seeing here are RT's of my fart jokes.  Using Twitter as a means to serve people legal documents is as good of an idea as divorcing someone via a fax.  Right, Phil Collins?  

Must be a British thing.