Re¢ently

  1. Followup: Playing the family name game.

    jake on 2007.06.07 at 12:39 am

    The other night I found a first hand experience of a man changing his name. Like some of the situations discussed before, this was simply a concatenation of the two family names. My friends Tom and Liz wanted to merge their last names into one, gloriously hyphenated, when they married. Liz simply had to sign a document while getting their license. Tom had a bigger ordeal, compounded with poor timing.

    For Tom to get his name changed he needed to go to a probate judge. This is rather silly to begin with. Worse the local judge only sees such cases within a few hour time span, on Thursdays. The problem Tom faced at the time was that this had to be done as soon as possible and he just started a new job. And had a bunch of meetings on Thursday. Luckily he talked someone into dealing with him right then and there. That talk cost him an extra $150.

    Why would they make something so simple such a pain in the ass? I understand that it’s currently unorthodox but it’s not like Tom wanted to change his name to something silly. It was directly related to his marriage and Liz simply had to sign a document. Couldn’t Tom have done the same thing? Shouldn’t he be able to?

    Posted in: History

    Talk Bubble 1 Comments

  2. Whose name should be chosen?

    jake on 2007.03.30 at 10:45 pm

    Everyone seems to look at me funny when I mention an article about men taking their wives’ last names. (from Digg) I don’t see where the issue is. Different cultures have always had different traditions. The article also references hyphenating last names as a compromise. Either way it’s up to the couple involved. I’m comfortable with the idea of adopting a future wife’s last name if it makes sense.

    One example of when this would make sense (sorry to drag you into this) would be our friend Jess. Her last name is the creation of ancestors coming to America, at least that’s the story I remember. Regardless she has a unique name and assuming she wants to keep her lineage alive who’s to stop her?

    Or another instance where I’ve witnessed this actually occur was a couple where the husband–to–be had a malicious family. Outside of one brother he wished he didn’t belong the people who raised him. He took his wife’s surname as a form of escape.

    I can’t say for certain what I will do when this situation comes up. But no matter what I have two brothers to keep my family name going within the foreseeable future. Do you think you would break tradition in this manner?

    Posted in: History

    Talk Bubble 3 Comments

  3. Short story about copyright extension

    jake on 2005.01.11 at 07:21 pm

    This morning I had the pleasure of reading The People Who Owned the Bible – a story. It’s a funny little story about copyright extension and how silly it really can be. Copyright extension is a rather ludicrous proposition. It’s doing a lot more harm than good.

    Thanks Cory

    Posted in: History · Media

    Talk Bubble 0 Comments

  4. Troy: The movie vs. The Illiad

    jake on 2004.05.20 at 07:39 pm

    In the last couple days I’ve found two interesting sites about the move Troy.

    Agamemnon’s Hall of Greed, Mycenae
    MENELAUS: WAHHHHHHHHH!
    AGAMEMNON: There, there. I will be more than happy to wage a giant war and take over the entire Mediterranean get your wife back.
    MENELAUS: sniff You’re the best, man.
    AGAMEMNON: I know.
    ODYSSEUS: You realize we’re going to need Achilles, right?
    AGAMEMNON: DAMMIT!
    Some Island
    ODYSSEUS: Hey, man, what up?
    ACHILLES: Nothin’ much [dodge, parry, stab]. Just teaching Patroclus [dodge, parry, dodge] to fight [stab].
    ODYSSEUS: Lookin’ good there, kid. What is he, your—
    ACHILLES: Cousin. He’s my cousin. Cousin. Totally my cousin. In conclusion: Cousin.

    Posted in: History · Movies

    Talk Bubble 0 Comments

  5. 17th Century Gone Wild

    jake on 2004.05.19 at 12:56 pm

    Apparently showing one's breast was popular in the 17th century. It is speculated that it was a sign of virility.

    I find this interesting considering how in the US we still have Puritan ideals skewing our views of things. I'm not saying we should have women walking around with their breasts exposed. Just that it bothers me when artists are attacked over things related to the whole Puritan belief system.

    Posted in: History

    Talk Bubble 0 Comments

by date

« Jul 2017 »
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
today