To Bardfinn:

You just merely laws that cops and citizens both have to and can both easily follow. Littering? Please.

You are wrong in stating that cops have to follow all laws "like everyone else". They don't. They shouldn't and they couldn't do their jobs if they had to.

Cops in pursuit of criminals do not have to obey the speed limit. Cops are legally able to take a law breaking citizen into custody, forcibly if necessary. If a citizen did that it could very well be considered unlawful imprisonment or even kidnapping.

The retired cop was probably just trying to help out the on duty cop. If you saw one of your friends getting harassed by some idiot with a video camera you'd probably intervene also.

Also, perhaps the on duty cop was taking advantage, but if she was the street's meter made, so what? We all take liberties.

The video guy is just an indignant jerk.

He's the "Billy has more cookies than I do...", wah, wah, wah, tattler brat that we all hate.

The guy doing the video taping is an idiot.

Uniform cops don't have to obey parking regulation and shouldn't have to. It's funny that at the end of the video, he cites the police officer not wearing a seat belt. There's actually a documentated legislation for most municipalities that states uniform police officers do not have to wear their seat belts if they choose not to in order to facilitate easy exit from their cruisers during patrols and\or pursuits.

This guy's just another confrontation hungry, love me daddy moron looking for attention.

Nuff said.

Well, if there's anything good about this, it's that it shows the foolishness and downright horror that is the chronically indignant adult child-woman. Years of female infantilism in the United States has caused the creation of these little monsters. Unfortunately, civil\family courts almost always enable these types by doling out large divorce and\or child support settlements to them. It's a shame that we haven't come quite far enough to stop this sort of thing. I don't think it's because the majority of people don't know that it's wrong. I think it's because there are too many lawyers making too much money off of women like this-too many big, rich law firms to lobby the legislators to keep current and create new unfair family court and marital laws in place. Hopefully, the continued revealing of these types in the media will further clue people in to how horrible they are and how family courts need to change.

Kudos, to this unappreciateive nut job of a washed up trophy wife for showing us how horrid you are and for showing us what millions of other men go through every day in silent suffering. Thank you, Ms. Walsh-Smith for your candor.

P.S. To the sympathetic posters (if there are any): Don't let Ms. Walsh-Smith hide behind her Prozac. This isn't manic depression, it's simply a spoiled brat.

Not sure what the big deal is with this. R/C, photography hobbyists have been doing this for years, albeit the majority of which have slightly lesser video quality. Check out some videos:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=r%2Fc+camera+plane&search_type=

Aside from the steadycam aspects, it appears to be nothing more than a video camera on an R/C copter.

Looks like the Rodman household was a pretty groovy place. The "computer" is so imposing, I almost missed the dude rocking out on the guitar in the background.

To #18

I called Sony and asked a sales the very same question. He said that Sony doesn't manufacture tables. So, they can't guarantee that a table will withstand a theft attempt.

This is actually a photo of a military personnel member testing out the ultra secure laptop computer, Sony BYOBC 2000. It's actually bolted to the concrete floor to prevent theft. It has to be used that way.

To #5 and all other opponents of my original comment:

Let me preface my retort by apologizing for neglecting to address any other opposing arguments.

First off, in response to

"men 'decline paternity' constantly, and women get stuck with the kid"

The fact is men in the United States can never legally decline paternity even if they want to. Women are legally afforded many opportunities to decline paternity in the course of their pregnancies and even after their children are born. Abandonment legislation has been passed in nearly all 50 states in response to high numbers of infanticide in the 1980's. Abandonment legislation allows a mother to legally and ANONYMOUSLY abandon her newborn baby at police stations, fire stations and even public libraries without recourse or financial obligation. A mother in the United States isn't even required to notify or seek permission from the child's biological father prior to abandoning his child.

Female US citizens are never "stuck with the kid". Women choose to bring the child to term and ultimately and unilaterally accept legal paternal responsibilities. At no point in the process has legal paternity been forced upon any woman in the United States for over the last 30 years. Yet it happens to hundreds if not thousands of US men every day.

Again to # 5, in response to
"I'd suggest that if a man feels strongly about not being required to parent a child he may accidentally conceive, that he discuss it with his sex partner and make a legal agreement to that effect. If both parties are really OK with that arrangement, then there should be no problem, right?"

Wrong. It would be wonderful if the US state and federal family court systems gave men such options like the one you suggested, but, sadly, they don't. There is no such legal precedence or court recognition for hypothetical legal agreements that you propose short of sperm banks sans sexual intercourse. A man loses any family planning control as soon as heterosexual intercourse takes place. If he objects to paternity, he can be dragged (yes, literally) into court, forced to submit to DNA testing and again, forced, to "accept" paternity of an unintended conception which includes but is not limited to hefty child support obligations. That 17% of income in most US states PLUS a percentage(usually higher than 17% depending on income levels of both parents) of daycare, medical and, yes, TUITION, if the mother and only the mother decides to enroll the child in private school. Not to mention that once the biological father is determined in most states, he will be held responsible for 100% of the medical birthing costs if the mother is uninsured at the time of labor. That's 100%. Not half, not even 70%, but 100% of the birthing costs. That's the law. So, as you can see the amount of child support is much higher than 17% and is quite crippling. Try paying 17% of your income each month when you're already trying to pay off over $40,000 in medical bills that aren't even your own and see how quick people are to classify you as a deadbeat.

Don't get me started on the sorry state of the child support enforcement agencies in the United States. That gripe alone could fill volumes. I'll just say that the reason that there is a deadbeat dad epidemic in the US is not because there are so many fathers attempting to abandon their children and deny support. The reason is that the child support enforcement agencies' and family courts' requirements are completely unfair, unrealistic and finanicially crippling.

What's worse with this whole mess is that the contraceptive method available to men is a joke. Condoms? They break! Even when used correctly, they have a failure rate of 15%. That means that for every 100 couples using condoms perfectly (and most don't) 15 unintended pregancies will occur. The failure rate for imperfect condom use increases to an astounding 20%. That's about as effective as the withdrawal method.

Although, vasectomy reversal surgical technology has improved, they are not always effective. So, vasectomy although effective in preventing pregnancy have to be considered permanent sterility. Women in the US almost never have to go to those lengths to ensure against unintended paternity.

It's no wonder why 70% of all annual pregnancies in the United States are unintended.

Compare that to the perfect use failure rate of most contraceptive methods (i.e. the pill) avaiable to women which is less than 1%.

It's the 21st century. Yes, let's get an effective, rock solid male contraceptives for men like women currently enjoy. Let's also afford men the same legal rights that women have.

Kudos to the company that made this product available. This represents another step forward for men.

Now, if we could only get the supreme court to grant men the same family planning rights that women have. Men should have the right to decline paternity in cases of unintended conception just like women have had that right for over 30 years.

Check out

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/

To support men's family planning rights. Matt Dubay is courageously taking on the Michigan family court in an effort to take control of his reproductive rights.

I have a nearly two year old kid. So, I can't read anymore anyway.

I guess they're trying to find the next John Titor.

I was so focused on the girl's shapely behind that I didn't even notice the two older people in the bed until the page reloaded for me to comment. She's got a nice butt, but yeah, what's with the dots? If a girl has butt dimples that's usually where they are, but in this case they're probably poorly chosen and\or drawn tattoos. The advertiser should've airbrushed them out. They ditract from the message....Whatever that is.

Whoops! Type-O. I meant to type, Y.I.F. In case you're wondering, Y.I.M actually stands for "Yoga Inclined Monkeys", which, as many of you have guessed, frequenty suffer from Y.I.F..

Laughter and Yoga have traditionally gone together as a direct result of Y.I.M (Yoga Induced Flatulence).

Necking, glugging, sculling? This article seems to be more about coming up with esoteric terms for drinking rather than the actual incident?

What's wrong with the old standbys, chugging and swigging?

Why don't they just put the whole phone on the wrist?

To GMANUK101

"(p.s the foo fighters tickets are fictional, replace with your favourite band/performer)"

Don't you mean "foo fighters" tickets is a variable.

Sorry, too many programming classes.

It reminds me of the portable, removable laptop component of the "Guillotine" computer from the movie, The Final Cut. Awesome movie and awesome prop design.

Sweet ride.

Uh oh. I guess it's time to convert to a Whuffie system.

His comments don't surprise me. Glenn Beck is just the latest flavor of idiot and-oh, big surprise!-he's a conservative. He's being marketed as the cool conservative because he snorted so much blow, that his brains ran out of his nose. Glenn Beck=moron....Nuff said.

This looks like a prop from one of the Saw movies.

Oh, gosh no! Not a topless woman!

Wouldn't it just be easier, cheaper and more realistic to rub real excrement on your bare behind?

It's a wonder that the rest of those dopes still associate with Coulter after she's weakened the conservative party so many times with her completely idiotic statements.

In addition, it's scary that she's the best looking of them. Yikes!

Has anyone besides me noticed that Jonathan Davis, lead singer of Korn, bears a striking resemblance to Oliver Hardy of Laurel and Hardy fame?

Great, just what the Catholic Church needs more of, lies and misinformation. Oh wait, that's what all dogmatic religions sport.

Sounds to me like "mpion" would be a better name for a combination MP3 player\pregnancy test.

So when is "Down and Out..." going to be translated into a movie?

Bob W. No, I did mean straight (i.e. heterosexual). You're right about at least one thing. You can't control the behaviour of your partner(with exceptions), but you can determine who your partner is and if his behaviour doesn't agree with you, you can dismiss him and select another who exhibits behaviour that you prefer. As stated I'm not knocking the behaviour exhibited in the pics, I'm merely stating that most heterosexual males wouldn't engage in it with committed girlfriends and/or wives. Hence my gut feeling that most if not all of the pics are of acts of prostitution.

The guy wants $10K in escrow and he can't post a few lousy pics of the place?

She's cute(with hair), though.

I know there are many persuasions out there. Guys who like to share their girlfriends with other guys are bisexual, whether they know it or not or just won't admit it. Straight guys who share a female partner with another guy usually aren't in any kind of relationship with the girl beyond a physical one. They'll share the chick just because she's there and willing to have sex. The kink is probably primarily on her side since the dudes are separated(so to speak) by an albeit thin layer of tissue. Straight guys who share are primarily looking for sex and nothing more. It would have to be with a female friend(i.e. nongirlfriend/nonwife), stranger or toss away relationship. Most straight guys won't share their actual girlfriends or wives, though. A traditional (i.e. natural (we're talking about sex here)) straight guy is usually way too territorial, possessive and\or jealous to share their committed women with other guys. It just isn't natural and doesn't come naturally to most heterosexual guys. I'm not knocking guys who do share. I'm just saying it isn't really in the design of a straight guy to share. If you don't like that fact, blame who or whatever created man for that. That's why "sharing" partners is considered kink. I mean if it was "normal" behavior and frequent, it wouldn't be considered kink and we wouldn't even be having this dialogue. It isn't anything new that straight guys are possessive and territorial especially with something as intimate and important as a sexual partner. Come on, wars were waged over crap like this.

The photos are very odd. Forgive my western pursuasion, but what real couple would continue about their business with a group of male spectators emerging from the surrounding forest? In one of the pics a peeper is actually touching the girl. I've done it in "public" with my girl plenty of times before we finally got a place together, but if I saw some dude watching us, I'd take my girl and head for zee hills. And if some peeper managed to get close enough to touch her, he'd end up pulling back his own severed stump if he dared to try to touch her. If a chick or group of chicks wanted to watch us, I wouldn't care. Hell, I'd like that, but when would that ever happen? Only in my dreams, no doubt. It seems to me that these were probably pics of acts of prostitution. The dudes watching were probably just waiting their turn or window shopping.

"His actions did not contribute to her death"!? Gimme a break. How about, "if he had called for help like a normal, human worthy of life, she may have made it"- or in the least been made comfortable? Instead, this piece of garbage degraded her in her last moments of life and quite possibly, I venture to guess, hastened her albeit, possibly imminent, death.

And what's this crap "insobriety make his actions slightly more explainable if not excusable"? Are you kidding? So, you think the state of drunkenness or highness is a free pass for one to do anything and everything they normally wouldn't do while sober? Gimme a break. What about drunk drivers who kill people with their cars while driving drunk? Let them all go? No!

Mr. Anderson and his little group of friends who weren't only present but enjoying and filming the scene should have the book thrown at them. In fact, I venture to recommend the UK courts create a very special sentence for them, one especially degrading, dehumanizing and lengthy. These pieces of trash shouldn't be out in the public for a very long time, if ever. I've been totally smashed before and I can tell you that I've never hurt anyone during my drunkenness. Sober or drunk, one's actions speak volumes about their capabilities.

Mr. Anderson is just one more sociopath who should be locked away and/or sedated until rendered harmless to the public.