The article doesn't mention whether they move as the sun moves, or if something obstructs them as they gradually slip off to the top or bottom, or whether they just fade away or simply vanish immediately, so it may not necessarily be a sun-reflection.

I've never heard of hard lemonade either. Why wouldn't make the distinction glaringly obvious? You just order a lemonade and they give you booze? wtf?

just glad it's not another TED post

@13, much less change out all the batteries. Daylight savings would be a nightmare.

How is it that "psychoanalyst" is misspelled both times (heading and summary)?

@14, Oh yeah, I mean, surely no one would could possibly doubt the unprovable statement of science here. Why, they just discovered a planet light years away that may be less than 2000 years old. With their portable inverse-dichromium deflector array. Aligned with the flux variance tachyon particle stream within twelve microns.

Isn't that a little difficult to prove? The above picture looks like a simple watermark.

@ #1 -- It's not a fashion industry idea, it has been going on for quite a long time. New to BoingBoing ≠ New.

The guy on the far left sounds like a voice model for the Steven Hawking computer voice.

Interesting link/thanks tagline.

"Thanks, person responsible for how the blog even operates!"

Umm, yeah?

#11 -- I'm with you. But I barely cracked a grin for The Ballad of Ricky Bobby's entire duration. Just not our style, perhaps.

I was not aware it was Mark's baby, I always assumed it was largely just a collective effort (and/or a Cory-vehicle) =)

There's been like sixty in a row. If I want to read more about TED I'll go to the same webite that's linked in every post. I come here for BoingBoing randomness, not a 100% frameset to TED.

Let's lay off the TED posts, eh?

When a police officers flashes his reds-and-blues at you on the highway, do you think that's just opt-in? Are you allowed to just floor it since you're absolutely positive that you haven't done anything wrong? Newsflash, Sherlock. The fact that you're refusing an officer's request raises giant suspicion red flags. You can file a complaint AFTER you show your receipt. Failing to cooperate with an officer is immediate grounds for attempt to detain you, because you're being a complete anusclown. Just fork out your blasted receipt like the other 2.38 fillion dillion of us think is a perfectly legitimate request. You won't be treated like a criminal anymore, one you stop wearing huge overcoats and skulking around like you're hiding something. That's like going to trial and refusing to show any evidence for your case and insisting that you're innocent just because you're some special crybaby. Case closed.

#2 beat me to it. I immediately thought of the BlackShark video as a far superior example of the article's suggestion, but was at an impasse of where I'd gotten the video from originally!

RE: #8 -- my thoughts exactly. This pitiful excuse for activism is nothing short of poorly thought-out vigilantism (notably from the Anonymous bunch). WeTheGeneric on YouTube has the right idea as well. The Anonymous message to Scientology reminds me immediately on the complete nonsense that are the Kenya protestors rioting in the streets over an election. "You know, now that you've burned my business down and killed my family, I'm really considering changing my vote." All Scientology has to do is fart in the Anonymous' general direction and will win by a technicality that Scientology opted for a strategy that made worlds more sense.

Even if I were on an abandoned railroad track, I would still be wary that a random abandoned train would be coming down it at me, and would generally avoid them. Pedaling down an abandoned monorail track in your experimental art piece is just begging for an experimental high-speed monorail being tested on an abandoned monorail track to smack you into oblivion. I'm just sayin'.

I think it's pretty clear in the article itself that the charge was blasphemy from the distribution (which actually, should be applied to the article writer, not the distributor), but in itself demonstrates the outright insanity of particular elements of that legal system. I don't find it a dent on Islam in particular, but largely on the overt lack of due process to determine whether it actually is or isn't blasphemy between the simple disagreement over interpretation.

PS -- typo correction in the article quote, "(which overSEES Islamic religious law)"

So where's the part where he alchemies the aluminum into tin?

@ MRFITZ..

Yes, it's the "somewhat" in the question that throws it all off =P Clearly a balrog can have some essence of matter enough to grip a mysteriously fire-like whip (which in turn can grip the feet of wizards) but on the other hand is made up of an unknown "quantity" of immeasurable substance. The ratio of plasma to solid isn't readily discernable =/

How exactly is this unconstitutional? And I mean exactly.. what amendment does this breach? What clause applies here? Or is unconstitutional just a buzzword naysayers use when crying wolf?

Is it actually Rowling herself doing the suing, or in reality the publishing company's watchdog lawyers? Let's not say "She should know better" unless we're unquestionably certain she as an individual is bringing the suit.

Lawyers who are not deliberately sought for a specific legal matter by a client, such as those who have reign to bring up suits without the client's prior knowledge per se, are notorious for making silly claims that are not the express intention of the client.

@ SEARCONFLEX

So, maybe opportunity that his grandfather wanted him to have is in it, and not having opened it sooner made him miss it. Now it's filled with grief. Just open it.

There's no infinite mystery here folks, move along. There's no insurmountable hope -- there's what's in in, and there's what's not in it. Just open the stupid box. Those who don't open the box are only fooling themselves. On purpose.

I wasn't leering questionably at the cockney assertion, but at the "bible" part of the title. It's very clearly not a bible, but instead some kin of pardody-like tract. The fact that it contains illustrations even pushes breaking the 2nd commandment, for his noodly appendage's sake. It's quite plainly a guy who summarized a number of incidents and drew some pictures. How did the bible title pass editorial review?

What amazes me is the quick judgment that was employed to establish that these are actually the same dog. The completely lack of evidence other than similarity is astounding. You're assuming that (a) there are no other dogs like this in the world, (b) no other dogs like this could possibly wear a santa suit, and (c) no other person ever takes this kind of picture of such an unlikely dog in such an unlikely suit. THAT my friend is such a tremendous leap in assumption that public perception of your ability to make sound life decisions is in serious jeopardy. And shame on you spoogetards for jumping in on it. It is a very common type of dog, in a very run-of-the-mill santa suit, in an unsurprising and generally un-unique stance for said pooch. I mean really.

ny chnc w cld wt ntl th ss s rslvd bfr pstng n lrmst mtn-srpd rnt bt bg crprtns?

Uh, you have to actually download the code from the site in order to even view the page, it's all in your temp net directory anyway -- you're just viewing the code that you've already got on your own HD. In order for the statement to even be readable, you've got to copy the code by the simple act of browsing to it.

This is about as ludicrous as the copyright statement on littlekenadie.com!

Looks disturbingly similar to Maxx, the once-popular comic book character (which is also the title) that was also turned into an MTV cartoon. Aside from the color difference and gait, the facial expression and overt lack of lower jaw seems uncanny.

If you're allowed to shoot first, and they won't shoot until you've taken your turn, you walk over to the 100% guy and shoot him point blank. Or, if you can, put them in a line so the second dude gets the exiting bullet also. You don't need to aim for point blank.