If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Delhi TV)   If this 110" ultra-HD TV is any indication, sex on the holodeck is destined to come from South Korea   (gadgets.ndtv.com) divider line 96
    More: Cool, HDTV, South Korean, Samsung, OLED, Japanese Media, Chinese TV, completion  
•       •       •

5954 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Dec 2013 at 10:16 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-30 08:54:33 AM
media.tumblr.com

We recommend you take the TV out of Dynamic mode.
 
2013-12-30 09:27:27 AM
Sounds like a setback for OLED - I hope UHD TVs are just filler while they continue to perfect OLED
 
2013-12-30 09:30:44 AM
 
2013-12-30 09:40:59 AM

dittybopper: Frank is still unimpressed.


my work here is done.
 
2013-12-30 10:27:43 AM
The sad part is.. with no media for it anyways, what's the point...?


How about working on image quality instead, reliability, power consumption, etc. instead.

It's like digital cameras, over 8MP, odds are there you will never print that picture over an 8x10 size, and yet, people believe that a 26MP will be better than a (let's go with) 14MP.

I'll take a smaller resolution in trade for better colours, image quality, etc. without hesitation.

And unless your face is within a few inches of that screen, at a proper viewing distance, odds are that nobody will be able to see the pixels anyways.

Maybe at one of those command centers with world maps in either the heroes or the villains main base, where they could get up close to find that tiny location that the other team's base or weapon is hidden?
 
2013-12-30 10:30:22 AM
Zaxxon would look amazing on that TV.
 
2013-12-30 10:33:35 AM
I have a 46" TV.  I can see possibly going up to maybe 60" someday, assuming prices continue to fall.  But 110" would fill almost the entire wall of our living room.

I already get the heebie-jeebies when the commercials come on and huge leering faces fill my screen trying to get me to buy junk.  I don't need those faces to be four times larger.
 
2013-12-30 10:34:43 AM

imfallen_angel: It's like digital cameras, over 8MP, odds are there you will never print that picture over an 8x10 size, and yet, people believe that a 26MP will be better than a (let's go with) 14MP.


Or they simply look at it on a
 
2013-12-30 10:36:04 AM

DerAppie: imfallen_angel: It's like digital cameras, over 8MP, odds are there you will never print that picture over an 8x10 size, and yet, people believe that a 26MP will be better than a (let's go with) 14MP.

Or they simply look at it on a


< 1MP screen (smart phone, tablet) or they view it on a slightly better screen. Such as on a computer or a television at slightly more than 2MP.
 
2013-12-30 10:42:39 AM
As long as that holodeck includes Korean chicks, I am so THERE.
 
2013-12-30 10:42:48 AM

imfallen_angel: The sad part is.. with no media for it anyways, what's the point...?


How about working on image quality instead, reliability, power consumption, etc. instead.

It's like digital cameras, over 8MP, odds are there you will never print that picture over an 8x10 size, and yet, people believe that a 26MP will be better than a (let's go with) 14MP.

I'll take a smaller resolution in trade for better colours, image quality, etc. without hesitation.

And unless your face is within a few inches of that screen, at a proper viewing distance, odds are that nobody will be able to see the pixels anyways.

Maybe at one of those command centers with world maps in either the heroes or the villains main base, where they could get up close to find that tiny location that the other team's base or weapon is hidden?


They're going to rock for strategy gaming as monitors (once HDMI1.4 is more common so you can do more then the shiatty consolish 30fps), but yah I don't think you'll hear anyone boasting about buying a new TV because it saves them $3/year in power vs their last one any time soon ;)
 
2013-12-30 10:45:53 AM
It'll probably come from whichever of the South-East Asian countries that are busy tooling up to do to South Korea what South Korea is busy doing to Japan.
 
2013-12-30 10:48:05 AM
Meh, not like it will matter subby. In the US the family values conservative ultra Christian coalition will lobby to have those immoral features outlawed and their pet Republitard Senators and Representatives will fall in line, so you will only be allowed to have virtual sex in special brothel zones like the one setup in Nevada. I figure if we humans ever invent a fully functional sex bot the same thing will happen to it.
 
2013-12-30 10:50:13 AM
*reads article*

The ultra HD TVs are also known as "4K" because they contain four times more pixels than an HD TV.

No they don't, they call them that because the horizontal resolution is ~4000 pixels.
 
2013-12-30 10:51:35 AM

DerAppie: DerAppie: imfallen_angel: It's like digital cameras, over 8MP, odds are there you will never print that picture over an 8x10 size, and yet, people believe that a 26MP will be better than a (let's go with) 14MP.

Or they simply look at it on a

< 1MP screen (smart phone, tablet) or they view it on a slightly better screen. Such as on a computer or a television at slightly more than 2MP.


yup...

In the last couple of years, I've barely seen or heard of anyone printing their pictures, it's mostly for email, web pages, Facebook, etc. All digital screens where you don't even need over 4MP.

The one reason where a higher resolution is needed (aside if you do print giant posters, in publicity, and such), is for cropping.

And honestly, I get some 18MP pictures that at 100% view, they are absolutely crappy and only by resizing them are they useable as it hides the crappy/blurry sensor pixel quality.


BumpInTheNight: They're going to rock for strategy gaming as monitors (once HDMI1.4 is more common so you can do more then the shiatty consolish 30fps), but yah I don't think you'll hear anyone boasting about buying a new TV because it saves them $3/year in power vs their last one any time soon ;)


I would gather that you'd be right to go with gaming... but that will require some massive video cards to handle such a resolution and refresh rate... but again, will those gamers put their faces into the screen?

All I can say is that this much money over playing games is really sad in my opinion.
 
2013-12-30 10:54:04 AM

Victoly: *reads article*

The ultra HD TVs are also known as "4K" because they contain four times more pixels than an HD TV.

No they don't, they call them that because the horizontal resolution is ~4000 pixels.


Psst...

4K UHDTV (2160p) is 3840 pixels wide by 2160 pixels tall (8.3 megapixels), which is four times as many pixels as 1920 × 1080 (2.1 megapixels).


You might want to look things up before posting something stupid.
 
2013-12-30 10:59:09 AM

imfallen_angel: Victoly: *reads article*

The ultra HD TVs are also known as "4K" because they contain four times more pixels than an HD TV.

No they don't, they call them that because the horizontal resolution is ~4000 pixels.

Psst...

4K UHDTV (2160p) is 3840 pixels wide by 2160 pixels tall (8.3 megapixels), which is four times as many pixels as 1920 × 1080 (2.1 megapixels).


You might want to look things up before posting something stupid.


Actually I should have stated and was a bit harsh, and I apologize for that, I should have stated :something incomplete and actually explained that while their idea is correct (it is about 4 x the resolution), that the term 4K is derived from the horizontal.
 
2013-12-30 11:03:51 AM

imfallen_angel: I would gather that you'd be right to go with gaming... but that will require some massive video cards to handle such a resolution and refresh rate... but again, will those gamers put their faces into the screen?

All I can say is that this much money over playing games is really sad in my opinion.


I'm running 5760x1080 as it is right now and yes I'm using a triple video card setup to do it, for strategy gaming I'd put my face in what ever place is required to see the entire damn map at once in say Sword of the Stars or Medieval War 2.  I'm sorry for your poors, better luck next economy.

(no I'm not going to drop 20-40K for a big TV, but I wouldn't be above spending a grand on a 4K 60FPS capable monitor or three)
 
2013-12-30 11:04:36 AM

imfallen_angel: The sad part is.. with no media for it anyways, what's the point...?


How about working on image quality instead, reliability, power consumption, etc. instead.


This is purely about branding -- they want people writing articles about how Samsung is developing the most cutting edge TVs.
 
2013-12-30 11:05:19 AM
Sort of want, but if I'm spending that much I'd want it to be 21:9.
 
2013-12-30 11:19:46 AM

Kibbler: I have a 46" TV.  I can see possibly going up to maybe 60" someday, assuming prices continue to fall.  But 110" would fill almost the entire wall of our living room.

I already get the heebie-jeebies when the commercials come on and huge leering faces fill my screen trying to get me to buy junk.  I don't need those faces to be four times larger.


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-12-30 11:41:52 AM

imfallen_angel: It's like digital cameras, over 8MP, odds are there you will never print that picture over an 8x10 size, and yet, people believe that a 26MP will be better than a (let's go with) 14MP.


That's a little different.

The difference between 4k and 1080p is going to be noticeable, especially on large screen sizes.

With digital cameras, there are a lot of other factors that influence photo quality, such as the sensor and lens. But for marketing purposes, megapixels is a much easier concept to explain to people who know nothing about cameras.

(It's a shame that nobody prints pictures anymore -- photography is so much more fun when you have a tangible output)
 
2013-12-30 11:42:37 AM

imfallen_angel: It's like digital cameras, over 8MP, odds are there you will never print that picture over an 8x10 size, and yet, people believe that a 26MP will be better than a (let's go with) 14MP.

I'll take a smaller resolution in trade for better colours, image quality, etc. without hesitation.


yeah, screen size is not everything.  not even the most important thing.

but, who cares what my opinion is, my TV is a CRT

/ not because I'm a purist, just because I don't replace what isn't broken.  but, there are monster sized TVs that look worse than my CRT.
 
2013-12-30 11:48:04 AM

imfallen_angel: You might want to look things up before posting something stupid.


4K resolution is a generic term for display devices or content having horizontal resolution on the order of 4,000 pixels (source).

4K used to be a term only for digital cinema projectors with a resolution of 4096x2160.  But then the TV folks started using it because UHD at 3840x2160 was close enough.  I've also read some articles that suggest that they hijacked the name because four-K is easier to say than twenty-one-sixty-P.  The switch from vertical to horizontal resolution might have also been because 4000 is bigger than 2160, and bigger is better.
 
2013-12-30 11:54:16 AM

Dinjiin: imfallen_angel: You might want to look things up before posting something stupid.

4K resolution is a generic term for display devices or content having horizontal resolution on the order of 4,000 pixels (source).

4K used to be a term only for digital cinema projectors with a resolution of 4096x2160.  But then the TV folks started using it because UHD at 3840x2160 was close enough.  I've also read some articles that suggest that they hijacked the name because four-K is easier to say than twenty-one-sixty-P.  The switch from vertical to horizontal resolution might have also been because 4000 is bigger than 2160, and bigger is better.


Psst. I corrected myself in the following post... explaining my point in better details.
 
2013-12-30 12:01:08 PM

BumpInTheNight: I'm running 5760x1080 as it is right now and yes I'm using a triple video card setup to do it, for strategy gaming I'd put my face in what ever place is required to see the entire damn map at once in say Sword of the Stars or Medieval War 2. I'm sorry for your poors, better luck next economy.


aww.. hate to break it to you, I have a triple monitor setup, and the point is that spending $150,000 for such a TV, then having to spend a few thousands for a rig that's able to handle this for a game, it's pretty pathetic.

I'd rather see that sort of amount being used for medical research.

Sorry that you're unable to write good and that games are so very important for you, better luck next... oh who are we kidding, thinking yourself better than others over your penis replacing 3 screen game setup on the internet is as good as you probably get.
 
2013-12-30 12:09:17 PM

pute kisses like a man: yeah, screen size is not everything. not even the most important thing.

but, who cares what my opinion is, my TV is a CRT

/ not because I'm a purist, just because I don't replace what isn't broken. but, there are monster sized TVs that look worse than my CRT.


Heck, My main TV I have, is a "now" old Sanyo 37 inch LCD and it's starting to have a ghosting issue, that's breaking my heart because this TV has an amazing image quality and excellent projection front speakers (something that I find pretty pathetic that they've stopped doing as you need a proper sound bar to come close to the sound quality that older TVs such as this one had).

I have to say that I held on to my CRT for a while longer than many, but in the end, with widescreen movies, the switch was worth it.

Once this one is beyond the threshold of being watchable, I'll have to get something new, and I will be going for something a big bigger as it would be better after all for the living room... Probably in the 50 inch range but no bigger.  Not sure what direction to go with though... another LCD or an LED.  I really would prefer an LED, but lately I've been hearing about lots of defects and quick failures.
 
2013-12-30 12:11:44 PM

thornhill: imfallen_angel: It's like digital cameras, over 8MP, odds are there you will never print that picture over an 8x10 size, and yet, people believe that a 26MP will be better than a (let's go with) 14MP.

That's a little different.

The difference between 4k and 1080p is going to be noticeable, especially on large screen sizes.

With digital cameras, there are a lot of other factors that influence photo quality, such as the sensor and lens. But for marketing purposes, megapixels is a much easier concept to explain to people who know nothing about cameras.

(It's a shame that nobody prints pictures anymore -- photography is so much more fun when you have a tangible output)


The difference will be there of course, but at the proper viewing/sitting distance, will it be worth it?

And I still print my pictures...  :-p, the paper just gives it a sheen that you can't see with a digital screen.
 
2013-12-30 12:19:06 PM

imfallen_angel: BumpInTheNight: I'm running 5760x1080 as it is right now and yes I'm using a triple video card setup to do it, for strategy gaming I'd put my face in what ever place is required to see the entire damn map at once in say Sword of the Stars or Medieval War 2. I'm sorry for your poors, better luck next economy.

aww.. hate to break it to you, I have a triple monitor setup, and the point is that spending $150,000 for such a TV, then having to spend a few thousands for a rig that's able to handle this for a game, it's pretty pathetic.

I'd rather see that sort of amount being used for medical research.

Sorry that you're unable to write good and that games are so very important for you, better luck next... oh who are we kidding, thinking yourself better than others over your penis replacing 3 screen game setup on the internet is as good as you probably get.


Awe, cranky pants needs his afternoon nap and/or diaper changed.  You go donate your christmas performance bonus to medical research, I'll continue buying video cards and basking in their 32x anti-aliased output.  Coincidentally large resolution display technologies are in fact driven by medical uses such as xray imaging, if we consumers can benefit from the products then why not.  150K is a ridiculous amount to spend on a personal display from both our perspectives but anyone who's doing so is helping further those technologies and is in fact indirectly helping your precious research by creating market demand and lowering the unit price, nes-pas?
 
2013-12-30 12:24:01 PM

imfallen_angel: thornhill: imfallen_angel: It's like digital cameras, over 8MP, odds are there you will never print that picture over an 8x10 size, and yet, people believe that a 26MP will be better than a (let's go with) 14MP.

That's a little different.

The difference between 4k and 1080p is going to be noticeable, especially on large screen sizes.

With digital cameras, there are a lot of other factors that influence photo quality, such as the sensor and lens. But for marketing purposes, megapixels is a much easier concept to explain to people who know nothing about cameras.

(It's a shame that nobody prints pictures anymore -- photography is so much more fun when you have a tangible output)

The difference will be there of course, but at the proper viewing/sitting distance, will it be worth it?

And I still print my pictures...  :-p, the paper just gives it a sheen that you can't see with a digital screen.

 On a 100+ inch TV I think it will (or projector). Prices have been falling so fast on TVs that I wouldn't be surprised if in 3 or 4 years 115" TVs is something most of us can easily afford (I'm amazed by the fact that I can buy a 70" TV for over half the cost of what I paid for a 46" in 2008).
I print all of my photos at oversized sizes on roll paper. There's just something about a photo at 16x22.
 
2013-12-30 12:33:51 PM

BumpInTheNight: You go donate your christmas performance bonus to medical research, I'll continue buying video cards and basking in their 32x anti-aliased output.


I just have to love Fark and all the pompous arrogance some farkers have.

Well, anyways, just have fun and keep overcompensating for your other lackings.
 
2013-12-30 12:37:29 PM

imfallen_angel: BumpInTheNight: You go donate your christmas performance bonus to medical research, I'll continue buying video cards and basking in their 32x anti-aliased output.

I just have to love Fark and all the pompous arrogance some farkers have.

Well, anyways, just have fun and keep overcompensating for your other lackings.


Cute coming from a guy who I've got farkied as "tried to pass themself off as Allie Sin". ;)
 
2013-12-30 12:40:01 PM
Anyone tried any of the super cheapo 4k displays from Seiki or TCL?

thornhill: i
 On a 100+ inch TV I think it will (or projector). Prices have been falling so fast on TVs that I wouldn't be surprised if in 3 or 4 years 115" TVs is something most of us can easily afford


There are a number of 1080p projectors available under $1k with excellent image quality projected much larger than this.
 
2013-12-30 12:43:21 PM

moviemarketing: Anyone tried any of the super cheapo 4k displays from Seiki or TCL?


I've got a friend who got a great deal on that Seiki model on black friday, says its pretty spectacular but does agree the HDMI 1.3 limiting things to 30FPS at full resolution is a nag.  Makes for an amazing desktop for more traditional things like view code or databases etc.  I wouldn't buy one as a TV simply because there's no media available for the resolutions and I'd at least wait for models sporting the HDMI 1.4 spec for the refresh rates myself.
 
2013-12-30 12:44:34 PM
Okay, we have enough resolution for now.

Let's start on getting a good color depth, please. Some of the 4K hardware does 10 bits per pixel, and a few can supposedly do 12 bpp (that's in one of the proposed ITU specs). They're probably going to have to go to 14 or 16 bpp to cover all of the real-world color space, though.

That's the point where the video starts looking like good photos. And yes, you can see that much more easily than you can see higher resolutions.
 
2013-12-30 12:45:26 PM

BumpInTheNight: imfallen_angel: BumpInTheNight: You go donate your christmas performance bonus to medical research, I'll continue buying video cards and basking in their 32x anti-aliased output.

I just have to love Fark and all the pompous arrogance some farkers have.

Well, anyways, just have fun and keep overcompensating for your other lackings.

Cute coming from a guy who I've got farkied as "tried to pass themself off as Allie Sin". ;)


Which I'm sure makes sense to you...

Oh well...Just as people with mental issues don't understand normal, arrogant dumbasses don't understand that they come off as arrogant dumbasses and tend to project a lot.  I expect no less from you than having to prove yourself better.
 
2013-12-30 12:54:04 PM

moviemarketing: Anyone tried any of the super cheapo 4k displays from Seiki or TCL?

thornhill: i
 On a 100+ inch TV I think it will (or projector). Prices have been falling so fast on TVs that I wouldn't be surprised if in 3 or 4 years 115" TVs is something most of us can easily afford

There are a number of 1080p projectors available under $1k with excellent image quality projected much larger than this.


Only downside of a projector is that they're only as good as the screen, and a good screen can cost in the thousands -- and the prices on screens is never going to fall.

When my current TV dies I'll certainly considered a projector. It will largely come down to my ceiling mounting options for it and the screen. (Though it could be a while until the TV dies -- it's a 2008, but due to a defective capacitor, Samsung replaced most of the guts of the TV last year, for free).
 
2013-12-30 01:07:10 PM

thornhill: The difference between 4k and 1080p is going to be noticeable, especially on large screen sizes.


I own a 65" 4k TV and its definitely noticeable.

/Sony is already kicking out content in 4k
//Amazon and Netflix plan on 4k content streaming early next year
 
2013-12-30 01:09:12 PM
A TV is to a holodeck as two cans and a string are to a cellphone....
 
2013-12-30 01:13:56 PM
thornhill:
Only downside of a projector is that they're only as good as the screen, and a good screen can cost in the thousands -- and the prices on screens is never going to fall.

Not so much.

All you need for a good screen is a reasonably flat surface that reflects correctly.

You can get shockingly good results from sanding down a well-made wall with fine sandpaper, then spray-painting the surface with good white paint (with the right color balance). I've seen a few home theater setups where they dd this, and got amazing results.

By the way - prices on screens have already fallen, you just got into the market after the drop.
 
2013-12-30 01:15:29 PM

gingerjet: thornhill: The difference between 4k and 1080p is going to be noticeable, especially on large screen sizes.

I own a 65" 4k TV and its definitely noticeable.

/Sony is already kicking out content in 4k
//Amazon and Netflix plan on 4k content streaming early next year


The image quality is going to be so compressed that calling it 4k will be false advertising.
 
2013-12-30 01:16:59 PM

cirby: thornhill:
Only downside of a projector is that they're only as good as the screen, and a good screen can cost in the thousands -- and the prices on screens is never going to fall.

Not so much.

All you need for a good screen is a reasonably flat surface that reflects correctly.

You can get shockingly good results from sanding down a well-made wall with fine sandpaper, then spray-painting the surface with good white paint (with the right color balance). I've seen a few home theater setups where they dd this, and got amazing results.

By the way - prices on screens have already fallen, you just got into the market after the drop.


You're right -- painting is certainly an inexpensive option that produces good results.

But as a renter, that's not an option for me.
 
2013-12-30 01:18:30 PM
My HD projector creates an image bigger than that. It's not 4k, but it is 1080p and looks brilliant at 150" on my wall. Best of all, the retail price of the projector is about $149,200 less than the big TV.

Still, it's cool to see Samsung showing off their TV-building chops, here.

Yeah, 4k is gorgeous, but right now there's not a ton of content and the stuff that is out there isn't really worth the price (yet). Give it a decade and it may be viable as a standard consumer product. Right now, it's for a select few who just want bragging rights.
 
2013-12-30 01:21:36 PM

thornhill: Only downside of a projector is that they're only as good as the screen, and a good screen can cost in the thousands -- and the prices on screens is never going to fall.


I have a nice, flat wall that I painted with a silver (greyish) screen paint. It looks fantastic and didn't cost thousands; Not even close.

And even on my plain white walls, it looked pretty damned nice.

You can also make a fairly decent screen yourself for a fraction of the retail price of a pre-made one. Black-out cloth is cheap by the yard.
 
2013-12-30 01:25:12 PM
Anything over 50" would be overkill for my small livingroom.
 
2013-12-30 01:30:35 PM

dittybopper: Frank is still unimpressed.


I'm gonna get one of my own real soon.
 
2013-12-30 01:30:50 PM

imfallen_angel: pute kisses like a man: yeah, screen size is not everything. not even the most important thing.

but, who cares what my opinion is, my TV is a CRT

/ not because I'm a purist, just because I don't replace what isn't broken. but, there are monster sized TVs that look worse than my CRT.

Heck, My main TV I have, is a "now" old Sanyo 37 inch LCD and it's starting to have a ghosting issue, that's breaking my heart because this TV has an amazing image quality and excellent projection front speakers (something that I find pretty pathetic that they've stopped doing as you need a proper sound bar to come close to the sound quality that older TVs such as this one had).

I have to say that I held on to my CRT for a while longer than many, but in the end, with widescreen movies, the switch was worth it.

Once this one is beyond the threshold of being watchable, I'll have to get something new, and I will be going for something a big bigger as it would be better after all for the living room... Probably in the 50 inch range but no bigger.  Not sure what direction to go with though... another LCD or an LED.  I really would prefer an LED, but lately I've been hearing about lots of defects and quick failures.


Go plasma from one of the top companies if you want to avoid ghosting and blur... Modern plasma is vastly improved over the previous generations. It maddens me that people act like plasma TV technology hasn't advanced and couldn't possibly be better than it was a few years ago. It's not hot. Burn-in is not any more of an issue than it is for LEDs. Weight and thickness are comparable to LED. Energy efficiency is sometimes BETTER than LED. The major problem with plasma is that the lifespan might be a year or two less than an LED (but conversely, the plasma was also 15% less expensive), and that if you're using it in a room with a lot of direct sunlight it will not function as well as in a room with no sunlight or indirect sunlight (due to the glass screens required for plasma).

Don't let people tell you "Plasma is horrible!" without really researching recent units yourself. It's NOT hot. It won't burn-in these days (unless you play COD 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for three years, but then your LED would do it in those conditions, too). It has WAY better color saturation, and the effective 600 Hz subfield motion (the stat comparable to refresh rate in plasmas) means fast action is beautiful and doesn't blur or tear.

If you can find a 1080p plasma (Samsung makes a 60" at that resolution) you'll be doing fine, and you'll pay about $150 - $200 less than you would for the same-sized LED.
 
2013-12-30 01:31:43 PM
Sorry to repeat myself so much, by the way. I got on a roll.

/Not hot.
// :P
 
2013-12-30 01:32:13 PM

imfallen_angel: Sorry that you're unable to write good and that games are so very important for you, better luck next... oh who are we kidding, thinking yourself better than others over your penis replacing 3 screen game setup on the internet is as good as you probably get.


Games are important. They are a good testing ground for new tech and they drive up production and drive down the cost of hardware that would otherwise have cost a lot more for other fields.
 
2013-12-30 01:32:19 PM
Looks like James O. Thach is gonna have to sell off a few more daughters into slavery.
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report