Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(TMZ)   Paparazzi company admits to using drones to spy on celebrity homes   (tmz.com) divider line 59
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

1758 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 04 Aug 2014 at 11:46 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-04 11:23:18 AM  
You know...it's shiat like this that is going to be the cause for some hastefully written, kneejerk, poorly written, and overreaching laws.
 
2014-08-04 11:51:24 AM  
This is why we have to ban all drones.
 
2014-08-04 11:55:18 AM  

Wellon Dowd: This is why we have to ban all drones.


Can't we just regulate the paparazzi?
 
2014-08-04 11:56:30 AM  
It was obvious that this was going to happen as soon as amateurs began mounting go-pro cameras on remote controlled hexacopters. This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2014-08-04 12:02:28 PM  

cgraves67: It was obvious that this was going to happen as soon as amateurs began mounting go-pro cameras on remote controlled hexacopters. This is why we can't have nice things.


If you or I were to do this it would be legal.  For them to do it is illegal (as the law is written today).  Using a drone for a professional reason (paps taking pictures would qualify) requires a special liscense, which I'm sure they don't have.  Me using a Phantom and a GoPro to take pictures of my house from 600 feet, not so much.
 
2014-08-04 12:02:54 PM  

cgraves67: It was obvious that this was going to happen as soon as amateurs began mounting go-pro cameras on remote controlled hexacopters. This is why we can't have nice things.


We have nice things.

Quite frankly, if google can take a pic of me in my back yard or my kids getting home from school, why can't some other company do it to someone who happens to be rich and/or famous?
 
2014-08-04 12:03:07 PM  
As much as I hate paparazzi, these people make millions of dollars and know what they are getting into.  I do not have any sympathy for them.
\Also, I really don't care.
 
2014-08-04 12:03:53 PM  
I honestly wonder if privacy is going to survive the next 100 years. Open source and social media has fundamentally changed a big proportion of the younger populations' world view about what the line between public and private is (using non-government services, aka private companies, ironically). 75 years ago, would baseball fans let security pat them down just to go to the game? Would parents let their kids be randomly searched by dogs in school? When did this become acceptable?
 
2014-08-04 12:19:33 PM  
I *DARE* them to try that with Kiefer Sutherland.
 
2014-08-04 12:27:05 PM  

Buttknuckle: As much as I hate paparazzi, these people make millions of dollars and know what they are getting into.  I do not have any sympathy for them.
\Also, I really don't care.


There we go, I was waiting for that. Took you almost 40 minutes to show up.
 
2014-08-04 12:31:50 PM  

mjohnson71: Buttknuckle: As much as I hate paparazzi, these people make millions of dollars and know what they are getting into.  I do not have any sympathy for them.
\Also, I really don't care.

There we go, I was waiting for that. Took you almost 40 minutes to show up.


Eh, I agree with him. It's not like these folks became famous by accident.
 
2014-08-04 12:34:43 PM  

Trocadero: I honestly wonder if privacy is going to survive the next 100 years. Open source and social media has fundamentally changed a big proportion of the younger populations' world view about what the line between public and private is (using non-government services, aka private companies, ironically). 75 years ago, would baseball fans let security pat them down just to go to the game? Would parents let their kids be randomly searched by dogs in school? When did this become acceptable?


Kind of surprised that nobody's started an anti-drone service yet, to "deal with" drones bothering their clients.  As a bonus, drone 'dogfights' would provide free entertainment for the public and amateur videographers.  Or, I guess people could set up ack-ack guns on their decks.
 
2014-08-04 12:38:49 PM  

mjohnson71: Buttknuckle: As much as I hate paparazzi, these people make millions of dollars and know what they are getting into.  I do not have any sympathy for them.
\Also, I really don't care.

There we go, I was waiting for that. Took you almost 40 minutes to show up.


What?  If you disagree with me, then post a rebuttal.

Seriously, how hard would it be to take the money they have earned so far and disappear?
 
2014-08-04 01:06:17 PM  

Billy Liar: Kind of surprised that nobody's started an anti-drone service yet, to "deal with" drones bothering their clients.  As a bonus, drone 'dogfights' would provide free entertainment for the public and amateur videographers.  Or, I guess people could set up ack-ack guns on their decks.


Wouldn't taking someone elses little drone out be purposeful destruction of someone elses property?
 
2014-08-04 01:07:25 PM  

Buttknuckle: Seriously, how hard would it be to take the money they have earned so far and disappear?


Yep.
 
2014-08-04 01:10:18 PM  

Endive Wombat: Wouldn't taking someone elses little drone out be purposeful destruction of someone elses property?


Yes, and if they take out a drone it most likely would destroy the attached camera.  Entry level for production level quality for a drone and camera is going to cost you at least a grand.  Good paps are going to have at least 5K in a rig.  That's a felony.
 
2014-08-04 01:15:28 PM  

Endive Wombat: Billy Liar: Kind of surprised that nobody's started an anti-drone service yet, to "deal with" drones bothering their clients.  As a bonus, drone 'dogfights' would provide free entertainment for the public and amateur videographers.  Or, I guess people could set up ack-ack guns on their decks.

Wouldn't taking someone elses little drone out be purposeful destruction of someone elses property?



You don't have to necessarily destroy them.  I think a squadron of half a dozen sent up to "harass" them might do the trick.  But yeah, the ack-acks might be a little much.  See what we can do to scramble the signals first.
 
2014-08-04 01:16:20 PM  
I will now start development on a medium range targeted EMP gun.
 
2014-08-04 01:30:26 PM  

Buttknuckle: mjohnson71: Buttknuckle: As much as I hate paparazzi, these people make millions of dollars and know what they are getting into.  I do not have any sympathy for them.
\Also, I really don't care.

There we go, I was waiting for that. Took you almost 40 minutes to show up.

What?  If you disagree with me, then post a rebuttal.

Seriously, how hard would it be to take the money they have earned so far and disappear?


So, if you decide to go into entertainment you lose the right to privacy in your home? That is insane.

Ask Harper Lee how easy it is to disappear.
 
2014-08-04 01:31:10 PM  
Motion sensor suitcase paintball sentry gun. It already exists and it would do the job just fine.
 
2014-08-04 01:33:45 PM  

Billy Liar: Kind of surprised that nobody's started an anti-drone service yet, to "deal with" drones bothering their clients. As a bonus, drone 'dogfights' would provide free entertainment for the public and amateur videographers. Or, I guess people could set up ack-ack guns on their decks.


There was a town in colorado that considered  issuing hunting permits for drones. The measure got shot down too, but It would have been pretty funny to see (at least, until the first time someone realized that a ballistic trajectory keeps going..)
 
2014-08-04 01:38:28 PM  

Fallout Zone: Buttknuckle: mjohnson71: Buttknuckle: As much as I hate paparazzi, these people make millions of dollars and know what they are getting into.  I do not have any sympathy for them.
\Also, I really don't care.

There we go, I was waiting for that. Took you almost 40 minutes to show up.

What?  If you disagree with me, then post a rebuttal.

Seriously, how hard would it be to take the money they have earned so far and disappear?

So, if you decide to go into entertainment you lose the right to privacy in your home? That is insane.

Ask Harper Lee how easy it is to disappear.


Agreed. Just because someone's chosen career is in entertainment, does not mean the public has a right to access their life at all times. Their pay checks don't negate that. These sort of antics only blur the line between reality and fiction, which can have dangerous repercussions.
 
2014-08-04 01:38:31 PM  

Fallout Zone: Ask Harper Lee how easy it is to disappear.


Interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_Lee#After_To_Kill_a_Mockingbird
 
2014-08-04 01:48:28 PM  

mjbok: Endive Wombat: Wouldn't taking someone elses little drone out be purposeful destruction of someone elses property?

Yes, and if they take out a drone it most likely would destroy the attached camera.  Entry level for production level quality for a drone and camera is going to cost you at least a grand.  Good paps are going to have at least 5K in a rig.  That's a felony.


Do you own the near-ground "airspace" above your property? If a drone flies onto my property (or, rather, "above" it), can I then destroy it? I know that, at least in my state, if a neighbor's tree hangs over the property line, I have the right to cut down that part which hangs onto my property. Does this not apply to drones as well?

For what it's worth, I don't really have a problem with celebs themselves getting hounded by the paparazzi, even though I think it's ridiculous so many people are so fascinated by the lives of these people (after all, there's a market for pics/vids/whatever of celebs). The kids of the celebrities, however, are another thing altogether (see Jennifer Garners testimony in front of the California legislature about privacy for her kids), since the kids have done nothing to get the invasion of privacy, and there's a risk of psychological damage or developmental changes caused by the constant hounding.
 
2014-08-04 02:01:22 PM  

Buttknuckle: mjohnson71: Buttknuckle: As much as I hate paparazzi, these people make millions of dollars and know what they are getting into.  I do not have any sympathy for them.
\Also, I really don't care.

There we go, I was waiting for that. Took you almost 40 minutes to show up.

What?  If you disagree with me, then post a rebuttal.

Seriously, how hard would it be to take the money they have earned so far and disappear?


Calm down.

So by your logic someone makes a movie or two, records a decent album or stars in a season of a TV show they should disappear?
 
2014-08-04 02:06:50 PM  

WxGuy1: mjbok: Endive Wombat: Wouldn't taking someone elses little drone out be purposeful destruction of someone elses property?

Yes, and if they take out a drone it most likely would destroy the attached camera.  Entry level for production level quality for a drone and camera is going to cost you at least a grand.  Good paps are going to have at least 5K in a rig.  That's a felony.

Do you own the near-ground "airspace" above your property? If a drone flies onto my property (or, rather, "above" it), can I then destroy it? I know that, at least in my state, if a neighbor's tree hangs over the property line, I have the right to cut down that part which hangs onto my property. Does this not apply to drones as well?

For what it's worth, I don't really have a problem with celebs themselves getting hounded by the paparazzi, even though I think it's ridiculous so many people are so fascinated by the lives of these people (after all, there's a market for pics/vids/whatever of celebs). The kids of the celebrities, however, are another thing altogether (see Jennifer Garners testimony in front of the California legislature about privacy for her kids), since the kids have done nothing to get the invasion of privacy, and there's a risk of psychological damage or developmental changes caused by the constant hounding.


I hate to go all pearl-clutching "what about the children": but that's what I was thinking. Or what about celebrities that are married to non-entertainment "civilians".

All I know is that if I was a movie star/famous musician: I would keep a modest 2 bedroom condo somewhere in LA and spend as little time there as possible: only for work. The rest of the time I'd live somewhere in flyover country
 
2014-08-04 02:10:06 PM  
I think now is the time for me to start my company providing drone destroying drones to celebrities.
 
2014-08-04 02:18:25 PM  

mjohnson71: Buttknuckle: mjohnson71: Buttknuckle: As much as I hate paparazzi, these people make millions of dollars and know what they are getting into.  I do not have any sympathy for them.
\Also, I really don't care.

There we go, I was waiting for that. Took you almost 40 minutes to show up.

What?  If you disagree with me, then post a rebuttal.

Seriously, how hard would it be to take the money they have earned so far and disappear?

Calm down.

So by your logic someone makes a movie or two, records a decent album or stars in a season of a TV show they should disappear?


Sorry, didn't mean to come off as angry.  I started Chantix a week ago and it is making me edgy;-)

To answer your question, yes, I think they should disappear if they don't like the spotlight.  It is part of the industry that they are choosing to be employed in.
 
2014-08-04 02:18:25 PM  

Crewmannumber6: I think now is the time for me to start my company providing drone destroying drones to celebrities.


Then I'll start a company offering my services to the paparazzi that will provide the service of drones that destroy drones that destroy the drones watching celebrities.
 
2014-08-04 02:24:22 PM  

Buttknuckle: mjohnson71: Buttknuckle: mjohnson71: Buttknuckle: As much as I hate paparazzi, these people make millions of dollars and know what they are getting into.  I do not have any sympathy for them.
\Also, I really don't care.

There we go, I was waiting for that. Took you almost 40 minutes to show up.

What?  If you disagree with me, then post a rebuttal.

Seriously, how hard would it be to take the money they have earned so far and disappear?

Calm down.

So by your logic someone makes a movie or two, records a decent album or stars in a season of a TV show they should disappear?

Sorry, didn't mean to come off as angry.  I started Chantix a week ago and it is making me edgy;-)

To answer your question, yes, I think they should disappear if they don't like the spotlight.  It is part of the industry that they are choosing to be employed in.


But do we want drones buzzing all over the place? When does it stop?
-GM hiring drones to fly over Toyota and Honda factories to watch their production levels and who's supplying them?
-Pro and college football teams hiring drones to watch each others practices? (I'm looking at you Bill Belichick.)
-Drones hovering over mall parking lots for security.
-High schools using drones to patrol school grounds.

I'm not afraid of big brother: I'm afraid of middle and little brother invading my every day privacy.
 
2014-08-04 02:25:55 PM  

mjohnson71: WxGuy1: mjbok: Endive Wombat: Wouldn't taking someone elses little drone out be purposeful destruction of someone elses property?

Yes, and if they take out a drone it most likely would destroy the attached camera.  Entry level for production level quality for a drone and camera is going to cost you at least a grand.  Good paps are going to have at least 5K in a rig.  That's a felony.

Do you own the near-ground "airspace" above your property? If a drone flies onto my property (or, rather, "above" it), can I then destroy it? I know that, at least in my state, if a neighbor's tree hangs over the property line, I have the right to cut down that part which hangs onto my property. Does this not apply to drones as well?

For what it's worth, I don't really have a problem with celebs themselves getting hounded by the paparazzi, even though I think it's ridiculous so many people are so fascinated by the lives of these people (after all, there's a market for pics/vids/whatever of celebs). The kids of the celebrities, however, are another thing altogether (see Jennifer Garners testimony in front of the California legislature about privacy for her kids), since the kids have done nothing to get the invasion of privacy, and there's a risk of psychological damage or developmental changes caused by the constant hounding.

I hate to go all pearl-clutching "what about the children": but that's what I was thinking. Or what about celebrities that are married to non-entertainment "civilians".

All I know is that if I was a movie star/famous musician: I would keep a modest 2 bedroom condo somewhere in LA and spend as little time there as possible: only for work. The rest of the time I'd live somewhere in flyover country


I can name several that have done exactly that (most famous one: Ron Howard).  I know I wouldn't base in L.A. on a bet.
 
2014-08-04 02:26:43 PM  

Trocadero: I honestly wonder if privacy is going to survive the next 100 years. Open source and social media has fundamentally changed a big proportion of the younger populations' world view about what the line between public and private is (using non-government services, aka private companies, ironically). 75 years ago, would baseball fans let security pat them down just to go to the game? Would parents let their kids be randomly searched by dogs in school? When did this become acceptable?


It can't survive. Within that timeframe we will have microscopic flying camera drones that will be able to photograph and film anything anywhere. They'll be able to automate surveillance of anything, or anyone. And it'll be cheap enough for anyone to do.

There's simply no way to stop the inevitable. We're going to have to learn to live with no privacy at some point.
 
2014-08-04 02:38:07 PM  

Another Government Employee: mjohnson71: WxGuy1: mjbok: Endive Wombat: Wouldn't taking someone elses little drone out be purposeful destruction of someone elses property?

Yes, and if they take out a drone it most likely would destroy the attached camera.  Entry level for production level quality for a drone and camera is going to cost you at least a grand.  Good paps are going to have at least 5K in a rig.  That's a felony.

Do you own the near-ground "airspace" above your property? If a drone flies onto my property (or, rather, "above" it), can I then destroy it? I know that, at least in my state, if a neighbor's tree hangs over the property line, I have the right to cut down that part which hangs onto my property. Does this not apply to drones as well?

For what it's worth, I don't really have a problem with celebs themselves getting hounded by the paparazzi, even though I think it's ridiculous so many people are so fascinated by the lives of these people (after all, there's a market for pics/vids/whatever of celebs). The kids of the celebrities, however, are another thing altogether (see Jennifer Garners testimony in front of the California legislature about privacy for her kids), since the kids have done nothing to get the invasion of privacy, and there's a risk of psychological damage or developmental changes caused by the constant hounding.

I hate to go all pearl-clutching "what about the children": but that's what I was thinking. Or what about celebrities that are married to non-entertainment "civilians".

All I know is that if I was a movie star/famous musician: I would keep a modest 2 bedroom condo somewhere in LA and spend as little time there as possible: only for work. The rest of the time I'd live somewhere in flyover country

I can name several that have done exactly that (most famous one: Ron Howard).  I know I wouldn't base in L.A. on a bet.


RuPaul lives on a Wyoming ranch with his boyfriend when he is not taking Drag Race.
 
2014-08-04 02:42:35 PM  
Drone wars. Awesome. Ima git me one. Come at me, biatches.
 
2014-08-04 02:48:06 PM  

Buttknuckle: Another Government Employee: mjohnson71: WxGuy1: mjbok: Endive Wombat: Wouldn't taking someone elses little drone out be purposeful destruction of someone elses property?

Yes, and if they take out a drone it most likely would destroy the attached camera.  Entry level for production level quality for a drone and camera is going to cost you at least a grand.  Good paps are going to have at least 5K in a rig.  That's a felony.

Do you own the near-ground "airspace" above your property? If a drone flies onto my property (or, rather, "above" it), can I then destroy it? I know that, at least in my state, if a neighbor's tree hangs over the property line, I have the right to cut down that part which hangs onto my property. Does this not apply to drones as well?

For what it's worth, I don't really have a problem with celebs themselves getting hounded by the paparazzi, even though I think it's ridiculous so many people are so fascinated by the lives of these people (after all, there's a market for pics/vids/whatever of celebs). The kids of the celebrities, however, are another thing altogether (see Jennifer Garners testimony in front of the California legislature about privacy for her kids), since the kids have done nothing to get the invasion of privacy, and there's a risk of psychological damage or developmental changes caused by the constant hounding.

I hate to go all pearl-clutching "what about the children": but that's what I was thinking. Or what about celebrities that are married to non-entertainment "civilians".

All I know is that if I was a movie star/famous musician: I would keep a modest 2 bedroom condo somewhere in LA and spend as little time there as possible: only for work. The rest of the time I'd live somewhere in flyover country

I can name several that have done exactly that (most famous one: Ron Howard).  I know I wouldn't base in L.A. on a bet.

RuPaul lives on a Wyoming ranch with his boyfriend when he is not taking taping Drag Race.


FTFM
 
2014-08-04 02:59:53 PM  
I came for the overhead pic of Brittany Spears laying on her stomach bare-ass naked.  Leaving disappointed.
 
2014-08-04 03:32:21 PM  
I expect open season on drones in CA. No limit, no license required.
 
2014-08-04 03:33:02 PM  

Fatty McFatcheeks: I expect open season on drones in CA. No limit, no license required.


Except that the guns needed to hunt them are not legal in the state
 
2014-08-04 03:34:40 PM  

Fatty McFatcheeks: Fatty McFatcheeks: I expect open season on drones in CA. No limit, no license required.

Except that the guns needed to hunt them are not legal in the state


Plain ol' 12 gauge shotguns for hunting ducks/game birds are illegal in California?
 
2014-08-04 03:52:51 PM  
Meh.

I'm already seeing drones fly over my neighborhood, and we don't have any celebrities.

I honestly care less about the peeping tom aspect, and a lot more about one of these things falling out of the sky and onto my home or even me. As things currently stand, you don't need any licensing, qualification or insurance to fly one of these things. Any jackass who can afford one can fly one. That scares me.
 
2014-08-04 03:57:07 PM  
Crazy place to build a house.  Especially with all the mud slides.
 
2014-08-04 04:03:14 PM  

thornhill: Meh.

I'm already seeing drones fly over my neighborhood, and we don't have any celebrities.

I honestly care less about the peeping tom aspect, and a lot more about one of these things falling out of the sky and onto my home or even me. As things currently stand, you don't need any licensing, qualification or insurance to fly one of these things. Any jackass who can afford one can fly one. That scares me.


When I was a kid my uncle had those RC model airplanes. But when we flew them we went to a park especially for that. It was in the middle of nowhere with a landfill to the west, a river to the north, railroad tracks to the south and acres of woods to the east.
 
2014-08-04 04:04:47 PM  

rjakobi: Wellon Dowd: This is why we have to ban all drones.

Can't we just regulate the paparazzi?


What needs to happen is a redefinition of a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy". In addition, a person's "personal space" needs to be defined as well.
 
2014-08-04 04:18:07 PM  

WxGuy1: Do you own the near-ground "airspace" above your property? If a drone flies onto my property (or, rather, "above" it), can I then destroy it? I know that, at least in my state, if a neighbor's tree hangs over the property line, I have the right to cut down that part which hangs onto my property. Does this not apply to drones as well?


It's obviously a lot more complicated than that.

Even in crazy places like Texas and Florida, you don't have free reign to do whatever you want to uninvented people and objects on your property.

Like if you came home and found a car parked on your lawn, you couldn't torch it.

My guess is that the only way you're going to win a lawsuit over destroying a drone on your property is if you can prove you reasonably thought it was a threat to your safety or the safety of your property.
 
2014-08-04 04:29:45 PM  

Billy Liar: Trocadero: I honestly wonder if privacy is going to survive the next 100 years. Open source and social media has fundamentally changed a big proportion of the younger populations' world view about what the line between public and private is (using non-government services, aka private companies, ironically). 75 years ago, would baseball fans let security pat them down just to go to the game? Would parents let their kids be randomly searched by dogs in school? When did this become acceptable?

Kind of surprised that nobody's started an anti-drone service yet, to "deal with" drones bothering their clients.  As a bonus, drone 'dogfights' would provide free entertainment for the public and amateur videographers.  Or, I guess people could set up ack-ack guns on their decks.


thisdistractedglobe.com
 
2014-08-04 04:31:48 PM  

balfourk: Motion sensor suitcase paintball sentry gun. It already exists and it would do the job just fine.


I doubt its got the range.
 
2014-08-04 04:46:09 PM  
cdn.rt.com
 
2014-08-04 05:04:12 PM  
makezineblog.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-08-04 05:11:41 PM  

thornhill: It's obviously a lot more complicated than that.

Even in crazy places like Texas and Florida, you don't have free reign to do whatever you want to uninvented people and objects on your property.

Like if you came home and found a car parked on your lawn, you couldn't torch it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGhCNakxzsg

Scene from Cutter's Way, one of the last great '70s movies (1981}
 
2014-08-04 05:15:38 PM  

Buttknuckle: Another Government Employee: mjohnson71: WxGuy1: mjbok: Endive Wombat: Wouldn't taking someone elses little drone out be purposeful destruction of someone elses property?

Yes, and if they take out a drone it most likely would destroy the attached camera.  Entry level for production level quality for a drone and camera is going to cost you at least a grand.  Good paps are going to have at least 5K in a rig.  That's a felony.

Do you own the near-ground "airspace" above your property? If a drone flies onto my property (or, rather, "above" it), can I then destroy it? I know that, at least in my state, if a neighbor's tree hangs over the property line, I have the right to cut down that part which hangs onto my property. Does this not apply to drones as well?

For what it's worth, I don't really have a problem with celebs themselves getting hounded by the paparazzi, even though I think it's ridiculous so many people are so fascinated by the lives of these people (after all, there's a market for pics/vids/whatever of celebs). The kids of the celebrities, however, are another thing altogether (see Jennifer Garners testimony in front of the California legislature about privacy for her kids), since the kids have done nothing to get the invasion of privacy, and there's a risk of psychological damage or developmental changes caused by the constant hounding.

I hate to go all pearl-clutching "what about the children": but that's what I was thinking. Or what about celebrities that are married to non-entertainment "civilians".

All I know is that if I was a movie star/famous musician: I would keep a modest 2 bedroom condo somewhere in LA and spend as little time there as possible: only for work. The rest of the time I'd live somewhere in flyover country

I can name several that have done exactly that (most famous one: Ron Howard).  I know I wouldn't base in L.A. on a bet.

RuPaul lives on a Wyoming ranch with his boyfriend when he is not taking Drag Race.


He was another that came to mind (he has a nice house in Atlanta).
 
Displayed 50 of 59 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report