Words fail me.
http://www.consumerist.com/consumer/consumer-alert/dont-take-any-wooden-flat-screens-165345.php
http://www.consumerist.com/consumer/scam/update-dont-take-any-wooden-flat-screens-165526.php
Tags: oven door, flat screen tv, theft, scam, everythingbuttheovendoor
]]>Warning: not porn, but does include bra-related breast physics.
http://www.shockabsorber.co.uk/bounceometer/shock.html
Tags: breasts, bras, bra, flash, physics, breast physics, bounce, shock absorber
]]>With a caption like “A man applies Crisco shortening to his arm in preparation of inserting it into Annie Sprinkels [sic]“, how can you really go wrong?
http://www.sohoweeklynews.com//Book/Nightlife/index.htm?size=1&exif=&page=all
]]>http://download.wbr.com/thesun/rd.mov
http://www.thesunwebsite.com/
http://www.beautifulagony.com/
No, this doesn’t seem like a good idea at all.
]]>The finding suggests that humans may be capable of subconsciously increasing semen quality when faced with the possibility that their sperm will have to outrun those of other men in a woman�s reproductive tract.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7487&feedId=online-news_rss20
This does not, however, explain hot girl-on-girl action.
]]>http://newsobserver.com/24hour/technology/story/2446091p-10758422c.html
There’s one thing that really troubles me about this.
WHY is the cost $60 per year?
Everything else, I can understand – it’s a voluntary labeling solution for content not meant for kids. As long as it’s voluntary, I think it’s fine. I don’t think it’ll help, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. If it becomes mandatory, that’s a problem. I think it would be much more useful to have a sanitized .kids domain. The problem with that is this – there’s huge disagreement over what isn’t suitable for kids, but it’s fairly obvious what is. The right solution is to identify the things that are, and let kids go to town on that stuff, instead of trying to corral everything that isn’t, which no one’s going to agree on.
But the thing that gets me is this – why should people pay up to ten times the price just for the privilege of presenting content just to a smaller audience (and the adults that will seek out .xxx domains will be a smaller audience than those that don’t understand the difference). That alone makes me think the entire justification is complete bullshit, and it’s just a grab for more money.
]]>http://www.rent-a-dildo.com/howitworks.htm
(Given their rental model, I’d have gone with something like “NetPrix” instead of the name they chose.)
]]>http://www.kladblog.com/image/200503/babes_pages/snoblog20050314-1.htm
(Update: apparently, there are a lot more of them here: http://www.fineart.sk/index.php?cat=2)
]]>http://www.urbanudismo.com/Present-Home-Lug-otros/Lugares.htm
]]>http://www.danwei.org/archives/001346.html
http://cul.sina.com.cn/s/2004-04-14/52694.html
http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/gossip/paris-hilton/index.php#paris-hilton-hacked-033638
]]>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/20/sao_tome_denounces_own_domain/
]]>http://xataka.com/es/archivos/2004/12/05-masajes_via_usb.php
]]>That’s just too funny.
]]>"When your phone receives a text message or phone call it will switch on the Vibrating stimulator for a set period of time."
http://vibraexciter.com/shop/erol.html
It seems like the next natural step is to combine this with the Audi-Oh.
]]>Witnesses before the Senate Commerce Committee’s Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee spared no superlative in their description of the negative effects of pornography.
Mary Anne Layden, co-director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Cognitive Therapy, called porn the "most concerning thing to psychological health that I know of existing today."’
]]>Also, don’t miss "TOP 10 REASONS WHY SEX AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT AN ADVISABLE FORM OF PROCREATION".
]]>