Oh, I know what Disney wants - I just am surprised that this has not received more publicity (at least to the level that, say, net neutrality has). Although it turns it will not happen until 2019, so the issue has a few more years to build.

Serious question: 95 years since the magic year of 1922 is next year. It will have been twenty years since Sonny Bono added twenty years to all copyrights. Napster and YouTube and so much more have revolutionized attitudes toward copyright in that time. Why have I not heard much about this? Are Disney et al.…

There was also a theatrical prequel co-written by Dave Barry!

Apparently (says Wikipedia) Yakov is his real first name and Smirnoff is from the vodka. He wanted a name that Americans would already know how to pronounce.

It makes me sad when any Internet content completely disappears (although I suppose some of it must have been preserved by the Internet Archive).

I kind of enjoyed the time about five years ago when I received a booklet in the mail and had to diligently fill it out every day for a week. I would not mind to do it again. But this sounds crazy and borderline (at least) evil.

I always kind of accepted the name as an given without ever really reflecting on what it meant. I figured out the clue, but I would never previously have thought to call Charlie Brown, Linus, etc. "the Peanuts."

That crossed my mind, but I figured if a book with a title that stupid had actually been published, I would know about it. (And it doesn't really make sense for the title of an autobiography.)

If only that number for the rosary were actually correct.

I think mustache = humanoid (or at least mammal).

The Hall of Fame will really reach a crisis in a couple decades when
there are no more acts to induct - unless they stretch the definition even further than they have already, which is fine, but I wonder how long that will be viable. Michael Jackson and Madonna operated in a world in which "non-country popular…

There were two more Eli Manning Days than I would have preferred.

Maybe. I kind of only watched sporadically after the show started to go downhill.

I don't know about the "plenty of friends" - in the early seasons there were subtle hints that Jim was a bit of a loner despite his apparent gregariousness (e.g., he made serious plans to travel to Australia all by himself). Even later on, it was more that everyone else in the office thought he was great - outside…

My great Jeopardy! fear is that I would get a DD (or worse yet an FJ) in which I can tell what the tease-out metric is supposed to be (e.g., city that shares the name of a tea), I just don't know that either!

I think "consequences of undoubtedly wrong answer are nullified because the first guy who rang in should have been ruled correct" is a longstanding precedent (although that is not quite what happened here, since Paul was not ruled correct).

I noticed many years ago that black baseball players seem to be much more conservative than black football or basketball players - not politically, but culturally. You almost never see baseball players with the sort of creative or unusual (or Arabic-derived) names that are common for black athletes in other sports.

Polls at the time showed that a significant minority of whites (almost a quarter) thought that O.J. was innocent. It seemed to be become more starkly polarized over the next few years (and then un-polarized as blacks also have begun to admit that he was guilty).

His closing argument speech was actually pretty good (although it must have been severely edited from the real thing - all I remember from the actual speech is that he ineptly tried to explain that "reasonable doubt" means more than "I have a doubt, and I have a reason for it").

It really works well most of the time. It is also surprising how easily the requirement of unanimity is usually reached.