Thanks. That's the one I was thinking of. And, yes, Hulk is the best. Though Captain America managed to pull off the "here's my rear and chest facing in the same direction" pose. Must be that super soldier serum.

Considering that I'm married with two kids, I've already found a woman who is attracted to me. She's never arched her back and stuck her butt out. And she's certainly never twisted her spine so that I could see both her chest and rear at the same time. Honestly, if she did that pose, I'd be concerned about rushing her to the hospital, not thinking "Boy, does that look sexy."

I actually like coding in PHP. You can create some really nice applications using it. Then again, you can create really nice applications with just about any server side language if you know what you are doing.

My main beef with PHP is the inconsistency with built-in function names. If you want to replace within a string, you use "str_replace", if you want to split a string into an array, you use "str_split". However, if you want to get part of the string, you use "substr". And if you want to compare two strings, you use "strcmp". If they could get some consistency there, it would vastly improve the language.

How has PHP been given a monopoly on the entire industry? There are other languages out there and many of them are used quite a bit. PHP may or may not be the most popular (I honestly have no stats to tell either way), but even if it was vastly more popular than any other web programming language, it would be far from a monopoly.

For a split second, I was going to voice my outrage over such a thing happening before my brain kicked in and I remembered that BBSpot is a humor website.

In my defense, though, when a teen can be arrested for writing a story in which he uses a gun to kill his neighbor's pet dinosaur, the humor/satire stories can be hard to separate from the true stories.

Sadly, "perceived slights" can spill over into the real world. For example, there are plenty of stories where people freaked out because a dad was taking photos of his children. Why? Because "man taking photos of child" = pervert! Call the cops!!!!

If you disagree with someone's position, by all means, argue with it (as you appear to be doing), however lobbing death threats and revealing personal information about the person isn't debating their position. It's committing illegal acts in order to scare your opponent into submission.

As a dad, I've noticed the "dumb dad" stereotype. However, I wouldn't say "I'm ok with it so long as men aren't badly stereotyped in this other medium." Instead, I'd be working to get rid of all stereotypes be they "dumb sitcom dad" or "helpless video game female."

This sounds very similar to comic book covers where the women are invariably drawn in highly suggestive poses while the men aren't. (As if women could twist their spines just right so as to best highlight their rear and chest areas.) Somewhere, someone draw an alternative poster for The Avengers movie where Black Widow was drawn in a normal post and the rest of the cast drawn in the kinds of poses women typically get. It looked utterly ridiculous, yet the "normal" version looked fine because we've been conditioned to expect this sort of thing.

Now, if someone calls attention to it and someone else happens to disagree with them, pointing out the flaws in their argument is fine. Calling them names isn't helping their case at all. And threatening them with real physical violence is showing that the criticism is but the tip of an iceberg sized problem.

Side note: Some are claiming that the threats probably weren't credible. However, her address was posted online by some of the people. If someone insults me online, I shrug it off and continue with what I was doing. If someone said "I'm going to kill you" and then posted my address online, though, I'd take that threat seriously. I wouldn't just say "Internet Trolls are going to be Internet Trolls."

Except that this COULD help a police officer who has been wrongly accused. Take the Ferguson case, for example. Let's suppose that the officer had a body camera and it clearly showed the kid doing what the officer claimed he did. Perhaps people would agree with the officer and not be calling for his arrest. However, if the officer had a body camera and it showed the kid standing with his arms up while the cop opened fire, it would provide hard evidence of wrong doing. In other words, this could help exonerate good cops whose actions are misrepresented and bad cops whose actions might otherwise go unpunished thanks to them lying about the circumstances.

The camera video doesn't mean a constant audit. If a cop pulls you over for speeding and lets you go with a warning, his supervisor isn't going to be viewing that recording. If the cop pulls you over for speeding, drags you out of the car, beats you, and then claims that you pulled a gun on him, the supervisor (and possibly jury too) will view the recording and be able to tell whether the officer was correct in his actions.

People behave better when they know they are being filmed.

Not always otherwise the old TV show COPS wouldn't have had any footage to use.

Come to think of it, though, perhaps the local departments could sell some footage to TV "reality" shows in exchange for funding to use the cameras. This arrest brought to you by NBC's new fall lineup!

Also, I'm sure that equipment doesn't just get shoved into a box and forgotten about. There are likely maintenance costs involved. Even if it just shoved into a box until needed, there are likely storage costs. Do away with the tanks for local police and they might find they have some money for cameras.

Even in this extreme case, it would be useful. Obviously, the police often arrive mid-situation. They need to use their judgement based on what they see at the time. The cameras will help by showing us just what they saw and how that led to their actions. In the case of Good Cops, it can exonerate them if the "victims" were shown to be ignoring the police and getting aggressive. In the case of Bad Cops, it can show the the victims weren't getting aggressive like the police claimed and actually were trying to comply. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than "Person A says this happened but the cop says that happened."

Or a "religious interpretation" as creationists are fond of claiming that Evolution (or, to use the more religion-sounding name they call it: Darwinism) is a religious belief.

It isn't, of course, but if they can claim it to be so, and if they can get some politicians to agree, then perhaps they can get Evolution banned as a "religion."

Not only that, but without the "why", the facts can be easily undermined.

Teacher to kids: "Evolution is the process by which species change over time to better suit their environment."

ID Advocate: "See? There's no evidence for it and the so-called scientists are just making things up as they go along. It's not like they have some 'process' they follow. If they did, wouldn't you have been taught that in school?"