must have been what people used back in the days before the invention of toilet paper. You just wipe and then throw the soiled cloth into a bag, ready to be taken out to the laundry. One benefit is that it allows you to wipe with a wet cloth, which gets you a lot cleaner. However, it would seem to me that it's going to substantially increase the amount of laundry you've got to do (since you want to keep the soiled wipes separate from the rest of your laundry). So would they really save you money, or be any better for the environment?
Thanks to Prof. Music for the contribution.
After I posted about the "pantyhose garment with spare leg"
yesterday, several people pointed out prior art, which to my mind calls into question the validity of the patent.
In the comments, Dumbfounded noted: "In a 1987 Judge Dredd story, the father of child serial killer P.J. Maybe shows off a design for trousers with a third leg, 'in case one wears out'. The spare leg was kept tucked in a pocket when not in use."
And then Chuck recalled that in the first News of the Weird
paperback (1989), he included an anecdote from the Wall Street Journal
about a Japanese worker who had invented six-day underwear with three leg holes.
I tracked down the WSJ article in question. It ran on Oct. 16, 1987 and described a creativity contest at Honda Motor Co. in which workers were encouraged to design whimsical new products, one of which was indeed underwear with three leg holes: "The garment is supposed to last for six days, with the wearer rotating it 120 degrees each day--and then wearing it inside out for three days."
Other products from the contest included:
- musical bath slippers
- a hot tub installed in the back of a car
- a fig tree that dances to the music of Karen Carpenter
- a toothbrush with built-in toothpaste
- a child's motorized sled that climbs back uphill by itself
- a pillow with an internal alarm
- and a rickshaw pulled by a manikin made of papier-mache and plaster (designed to resemble Honda's 81-year-old founder, Soichiro Honda)
Let's take a moment to remember Thor Bjørklund, the Norwegian inventor of the cheese slicer. From Wikipedia
He was annoyed that he could not get slices as thin as he wanted when he sliced cheese with a knife. Therefore in Lillehammer he began to experiment with a plane in the hope that he could create something similar for use in the kitchen. He succeeded.
And on this day, in 1925, he received a patent for the cheese slicer. According to blather.net
, "27 February ever since has been celebrated as osteskorperdagen
, 'cheese-parings day', the biggest holiday in the Norwegian calendar, when everyone gorges themselves on thin slices of cheese in the cold, icy streets."
Sounds to me like a good way to spend the day.
News of the Weird Daily
Friday, February 27, 2009
Court-ordered respect is still a buyer's market
Two Portland, Ore., women have decided that $50,000 each is fair compensation for being forced to show a cop their underwear during a traffic stop in 2006. The cop was convicted and has resigned, but do Portland taxpayers realize how many months strippers have to work, night after night, showing far more than their underwear, to make $50,000? (Also this week, Edith Freemon got a second life in her lawsuit against a Nashville restaurant that she knew, and maybe everyone in Nashville knew, specialized in customers' throwing peanut shells on the floor. Yes, Clumsy Edith fell down, and sued, and the state appeals judges said she is entitled to her day in court.) KATU-TV
(Portland) /// The Tennessean
More Things to Worry About
Researchers from Germany's venerable Max Planck Institute conclude that regardless of where on Earth you live, the range of bacteria in your spit
shows pretty much the same variations. Reuters via Yahoo
A judge warns cops to watch out when trying to apprehend that UK child pornography fugitive . . because he's radioactive! Daily Mail
Good news for U.S. trade balance: The Australian gov't spent about A$1m (US$640k) last month on sending a bunch of bureaucrats and teachers through "happiness workshops"
run by U.S. feel-good guru Martin Seligman. The Australian
Copying the notorious al-Qaeda strategy of killing Muslims in pursuit of Islamic dominance, anti-U.S. protesters
in central Sweden burned down three Swedish-owned stores. BBC News
A county court supervisor in Newnan, Ga., took on a second job last month after cost-of-living increases were eliminated, leaving him at $93k. (Bonus: He's manning the drive-thru window at Wendy's
) (Seriously) Times-Herald
Comments on Things to Worry About?
People Whose Sex Lives Are Worse Than Yours
Oh, my, another phone freak: Some guy called a KFC in Manchester, N.H., said he was from corporate and needed 'em to check the fire extinguisher and that if they got their clothes wet, they needed to take them off right then because of the chemicals. WMUR news report: "The workers said they became suspicious when the caller then told them to urinate on each other." WMUR-TV
People Whose Sex Lives Are Worse Than Yours (Bonus)
And here's this Cincinnati morgue attendant again. Kenneth Douglas was the recent final solution to a convoluted murder case of 25 yrs ago [NOTW M073, 8-31-2008]
, in that it was his sperm inside the victim but only because he had sex with the body in the morgue after someone else had murdered her. Douglas is serving prison time as we speak, but now further DNA testing has shown that he got busy with at least two other corpses, and he has been charged again. Associated Press via WTOL-TV
Your Daily Jury Duty
["In America, a person is presumed innocent until the mug shot is released"]
The backstory is just plain weird so Donna Greenwell and Brandy Romero could well be innocent. (Really, now, trade two kids for $175 cash and a cockatoo?) TheSmokingGun.com
I inform you that MSNBC legal talking head Dan Abrams has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal
today making a point that Your Editor has made at various times over the years: "Presumption of innocense" is for jurors inside a courtroom; for everyone else, "presumption of innocence" is bullshit. If the pre-trial public evidence is solid, he's guilty (only exception: if the prosecutor out-and-out made up the evidence). If the accused had exculpatory evidence (and you know the drill, e,g,, Oh, I'm looking forward to the trial so I can present my evidence and clear my name), guess what, he has already presented it to several prosecutors and their bosses, to no avail. Prosecutors hate like hell to embarrass themselves and raaaaaaarely go to trial exposed like that. Thus . . guilty! If you look carefully at the public evidence, you have no business according any "presumption" of innocence. The guy's only chance is if his lawyer can out-worm the prosecutor or smarm the jury. If that works, the guy'll be declared "not [proven] guilty," and he'll be free to go on that charge. But he'll never be "innocent" . . because he did it. The evidence says so. Wall Street Journal
Today's Newsrangers: Ginger Katz, Sandy Pearlman, Hal Dunham, Scott Langill, Bill D'Archangelo